Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Sea Fisheries Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

COAL MINES ACT.

Mr. JOEL: 1.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the methods of regulation introduced in the Coal Mines Act have in their experimental working shown any need of modification; and, if so, along what lines?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on Thursday last to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer).

ACCIDENTS.

Mr. TINKER: 2.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of fatal accidents at mines under the Coal Mines Act for the year 1930, giving separate figures for surface and underground and showing how they compare with 1929?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: During the year 1930, there were 866 separate fatal accidents underground at mines under the Coal Mines Act involving 940 deaths, and 73 on the surface involving 73 deaths. The
corresponding figures for 1929 were 936 accidents and 996 deaths below ground and 76 accidents and 80 deaths on the surface.

Mr. TINKER: 3.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of fatal accidents for 1930 caused through explosions of firedamp; how many lives were lost; and the figures for 1928 and 1929?

Mr. FOOT: During the year 1930, there were 18 explosions of firedamp, involving loss of life, the total number of deaths being 70. The corresponding figures for 1929 were 13 explosions and 34 deaths; and for 1928, 15 explosions and 36 deaths.

BOYS (EMPLOYMENT UNDERGROUND).

Mr. TINKER: 4.
asked the Secretary for Mines the latest figures of the number of boys below the age of 16 years who are at present employed and working underground in the coal mines; can he say what number of shifts they have worked during the last 12 months; and how many of them have been on the night-turn between nine at night and five the following morning?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: In December, 1930, the latest date for which information is available, 24,200 boys under 16 years of age were employed below ground at coal mines. I have no information as to the number of shifts worked by such boys but the average number of shifts worked during 1930 by workers of all ages below ground was approximately 238. No record is kept of the number of boys or other persons employed on night shifts but a special inquiry undertaken in April, 1927, indicated that at that time nearly one-third of the boys employed worked on shifts ending after 9 p.m. or beginning before 5 a.m.

Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last week he stated that the cost would be too heavy to alter existing Acts of Parliament in order to prevent boys working underground on night turns; are we not, therefore, entitled to know how many boys are working at night?

Mr. FOOT: I shall be happy to give any information that is available, but I cannot give information that is not in our possession. I drew attention in my answer to the fact that it would not only be an additional cost, but would mean
difficulty in reorganisation, and I said that we shall be glad to consider any representations that may be made to us.

Mr. TINKER: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get the information for which I am asking.

WORKING DAYS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 5.
asked the Secretary for Mines the average number of days worked each week by mine-workers in Great Britain during the year 1929, and the average each week during the first nine months of 1931?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: During the year 1929, the average number of shifts per week worked by mine-workers was 4.93 and during the first nine months of 1931, 4,67. As regards South Wales and Monmouth the figures included are those for the year ended January, 1930, and the nine months ended October, 1931, respectively.

STOCKS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 6.
asked the Secretary for Mines what quantity of coal was in stock on 1st April, 1st July, and 1st October, 1931, in various parts of Great Britain?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I am informed that the stocks of coal at mines in Great Britain amounted to 5,778,000 tons on 1st April,?,359,000 tons on 1st July, and 8,050,000 tons on 1st October.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do not these figures indicate that the quota schemes have not caused a shortage of coal or decreased working days?

Mr. FOOT: I think that the bon. Gentleman will probably draw that conclusion from the returns.

Mr. TINKER: Are these figures the average or more than the average of former years?

Mr. FOOT: I must have notice of that question, and I would ask the hon. Member to let me know for what years he desires the figures.

NYSTAGMUS (YORKSHIRE).

Mr. SOPER: 7.
asked the Secretary for Mines what statistics the Department has as to the condition of miners in Yorkshire as regards nystagmus; whether it is
increasing or decreasing; and what steps are being taken to reduce it to a minimum?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Statistics are available for the past few years of the number of cases of nystagmus in Yorkshire reported to the certifying surgeons under the Workmen's Compensation Act. These figures, which I will send to my hon. Friend, show a decrease since 1925 but with some fluctuation. The principal measures in hand for the prevention and cure of nystagmus are those to secure improved lighting in mines and an investigation under the auspices of the Medical Research Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINIONS (MINISTER'S VISIT).

Mr. HAMILTON KERR: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if, on his proposed tour through the Dominions, he will set himself to find or develop new markets for British manufactured cotton goods and communicate as soon as possible with those concerned, with a view to an early reduction of unemployment in the cotton industry?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Yes, Sir. I shall certainly lose no opportunity of endeavouring to find new markets for Britsih goods if occasion arises.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get the Dominions to lower their tariffs on our goods?

Mr. THOMAS: I hope that we shall be in a position to put to them certain advantages, and I should also hope they would reciprocate.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the depression in shipbuilding, is there any chance of the right hon. Gentleman getting any new ships?

Mr. REMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to see that there is an increase in duties on foreign cotton goods going to the Dominions?

Mr. CLARRY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will state in general terms the operative pro-
posals he intends to place before the Dominions during his visit in order to effect general Empire agreement?

Mr. THOMAS: I am not yet in a position to make any definite statement on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (POLICE PENSIONS)

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that the Minister for Finance of the Irish Free State has refused to grant the pensions of £30 per year claimed by the widows of ex-Sergeant Patrick Cummins and ex-Constable Jeremiah Brosnan, both of the Dublin Metropolitan Police; and whether he will inquire into these two cases in view of the joint obligations under the agreement of this country and the Irish Free State?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to him on this subject on the 6th of May last. The inquiries to which I then referred are not yet complete, but I hope to be in a position shortly to communicate the results to the hon. and gallant Member.

Sir A. KNOX: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that six months is rather a long period in which to inquire into a small subject like this?

Mr. THOMAS: It is not a simple matter. The amount may appear small, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well that the question of principle as to who is liable is involved, and that is not so simple as would appear at first sight.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not clear from the Debates on the Irish Treaty that the Free State Government took full responsibility for pensions for these people, and, if the Free State Government denies its responsibility, is not this Government responsible?

Mr. THOMAS: An answer to that question cannot be given across the Floor of the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is a very debatable subject as between the two Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, before making arrangements for his tour of the Dominions, any steps were taken to ascertain which of the Dominions, if any, would find it impossible to attend an Imperial Economic Conference not later than the spring of 1932?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The object of the Government has been to secure that the date at which the Conference shall meet is one which will enable all the Governments concerned to attend, and will also allow time enough for adequate preparations to be made.

Mr. CLARRY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in pursuance of economic development in the Empire and in view of the pending Imperial Conference, he has sufficient information regarding the general lines upon which specific industries and interests are prepared to agree to tariff adjustments and preferences both in home and Dominion markets to enable the Imperial Conference during its session to ratify inter-Empire trading agreements actually prepared prior to the sittings of the Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I can assure my hon. Friend that the question of the development of inter-Imperial trade is receiving the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and that the necessary information is being collected and examined.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORTS.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the importation of gravestones into this country; whether he can state the country from which these gravestones come; and whether he is aware that correspondingly suitable stone can be obtained in this country at reasonable rates?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Gravestones are not separately recorded in the Trade Returns of the United Kingdom, but the main importation of monumental and
architectural granite is from Germany and Czechoslovakia, and of marble from Italy and Belgium. I am aware that granite and other stones suitable for monumental purposes are available in Great Britain.

Mr. SMITH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has not been able to include foreign gravestones in the classification of abnormal importations?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That will be considered along with other commodities.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the district that he represents, Cornwall, there is ample material for all the gravestones required in this country?

Sir A. KNOX: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the increased unemployment in the furniture trade, what action he proposes to take to check the import of foreign furniture?

Mr. SUMMERSBY: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that increasing quantities of manufactured house furniture are being sent into this country, for instance, from Italy, where girl polishers are paid ¾d. per hour; and will he be prepared to put a tariff on foreign furniture to decrease unemployment in Shoreditch and elsewhere?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As my hon. Friends will be aware, certain metallic furniture is included in the Order of the 20th November last under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act. The facts concerning other imports of furniture will also be reviewed in relation to that Act.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity and value of woollen and worsted tissues imported from Poland during the first 10 months of this year; and if subsidies are being paid to Palish manufacturers by the Government of that country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the first 10 months of 1931, the total imports of woollen and worsted tissues into the United Kingdom consigned from Poland (including Dantzig) amounted to 1,611,000 sq. yards, of a declared value of £188,000. Exporters of woollen and
worsted tissues from Poland receive a non-transferable certificate valued at about 3d. per pound on pure wool tissues and about 2d. per pound on mixed wool tissues, which is available for payment of Customs duties on articles of any kind imported by them. The intention of this system is stated to be to reimburse to the manufacturer the duties payable on his raw material.

Mr. POTTER: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of fish landed into this country by Dutch, Danish, and German trawlers for the 12 months ended 30th September last; whether he can give the figures for the corresponding period of the previous year; and whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps with the view to protecting the interests of the British fishing industry?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. HoreBelisha): The total weight of fish, of all kinds from deep sea fisheries brought in to the United Kingdom by Dutch, Danish and German boats during the 12 months ended 30th September, 1031, was 14,000 cwts., 113,000 cwts., and?99,000 cwts., respectively, compared with 18,000 cwts., 85,000 cwts., and 1,006,000 cwts., respectively, during the 12 months ended 30th September, 1930. As regards the second part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on the lath November to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law).

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total money value and the average price of offals imported into this country in October, 1931, the similar value and average price of the same in October, 1930, and from what countries do they come?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Is there not a very great increase in the price?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. and gallant Member will wait and see the figures, I will then discuss them with him.

Following is the answer:


The following table shows, in respect of the undermentioned cereal by-products, the total declared value and the average declared import value (c.i.f.) of the imports into the United Kingdom registered during the month of October, 1930 and 1931, together with the principal countries whence these imports were consigned.


Description.
October, 1930.
October, 1931.
Principal countries whence consigned.


Declared Value.
Average Declared Value per ton.
Declared Value
Average Declared Value per ton.


Cereal by-products:
£
£
s.
d.
£
£
s.
d.



Bran and pollard
36,191
4
8
2
117,131
3
19
8
Argentine Republic, Australia, Netherlands.


Sharps and Middlings.
35,161
4
18
11
64,327
4
19
4
Argentine Republic, France, Netherlands, Australia.


Rice meal and dust
82,937
4
10
9
74,853
3
11
0
British India.


Other sorts
1,413
3
0
8
1,074
2
4
10
Irish Free State, France.

Major LEIGHTON: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any liquid milk, either pasteurised or otherwise apart from tinned milk, is being now, or has been during the last year, imported into this country, and, if so, how much?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The only fresh liquid milk imported into the United Kingdom comes from the Irish Free State, and the, bulk of this passes over the land boundary into Northern Ireland. During the first 10 months of this year 38,403 cwts. of fresh milk were so imported. In addition, 3,174 cwts. of unsweetened preserved milk (other than condensed and powdered milk) were imported into the United Kingdom.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade in. what quantities the under-mentioned products have been imported into this country since 1st January, 1931, and the value of this year's total importation of each: cut flowers, bulbs, and pot plants?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the first 10 months of 1931 the total imports into the United Kingdom of fresh flowers, which are recorded by value only, were of a, declared value of £927,500, while the Imports of bulbs amounted to 525 million, valued at £1,312,600. Imports of pot plants are not separately distinguished in the trade returns.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Are these imports classified as luxury imports or as necessaries?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is a matter of opinion. I have no doubt the producers think that they are necessaries.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: How do the Board of Trade classify them?

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the quantity of paper-machine wire which was imported into this country during the first 10 months of 1930 and during the same period of 1931; and whether there has been any sign of abnormal imports during the last six months?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that I am not in a position to give the hon. Member the information which he desires, as the imports of paper-machine wire are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Can the information be got from any source which is open to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will make inquiries to see whether it can be obtained.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to cases of abnormal imports under
Class II of the Board of Trade returns; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative and the second part therefore does not arise.

Captain MACDONALD: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to introduce legislation dealing with the subject mentioned in the last part of the question?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot make any statement on that question at present.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the extent to which dumping of goods from Germany, France and Czechoslovakia is affecting worsted factories in Scotland; and whether the amount of such imports will be taken into immediate account with a view to action under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As my hon. and gallant Friend will see from the Schedule of the Order which was made on Friday last, the provisions of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act have been applied to imports of woollen and worsted tissues.

"BUY BRITISH GOODS" CAMPAIGN.

Major CARVER: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made with the setting up of the organisation to promote the sale of British goods to which the late President referred on 7th October last in his reply to the hon. Member for Howdenshire (Major Carver)?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: A meeting was held on the 9th October at which a number of representative business men were present, and I understand that a subcommittee was formed to consider how the matter might best be pursued. The Empire Marketing Board, as my hon. and gallant Friend will have observed, have launched a vigorous campaign, in which they have had the invaluable assistance of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Has it never dawned on the right hon. Gentleman that the best way to encourage the buying of British goods is to give the British the power to buy British goods? They have not the money to buy.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that housewives cannot buy British butter up to May next because it is not labelled British?

IMPORT DUTIES, FRANCE (BRITISH GOODS).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken with regard to the recent increases in French import duties which discriminate against British products and manufactures?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given on this subject yesterday by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson).

Mr. RAMSDEN: In the event of the French Government adopting an unreasonable attitude, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to impose additional duties on French wines and other goods?

FOREIGN TRADE (PREFERENCES).

Mr. PERKINS: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the expectation among Continental countries of this country adopting a tariff policy, any proposals have been received from any country with the object of establishing a system of mutual preferences?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir.

MERCHANDISE MARKS (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Mr. RALPH BEAUMONT: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the importance of encouraging purchasers to buy British goods, he will consider the advisability of taking steps to compel advertisers to state in their advertisements the country of origin of the goods they seek to sell?

Dr. WORTHINGTON: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to initiate legislation to ensure that all advertisements relating to goods of foreign origin, whether in
the public Press or on the hoardings, shall bear an indication of the country of origin of the goods advertised?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, does already require the addition of an indication of origin to any specific advertisement of goods which have themselves to bear such an indication under Order-in-Council, and it is open to the manufacturers of any particular class or description of goods to take advantage of this provision by making application for an Order-in-Council.

An HON. MEMBER: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House of the nature of the exhibition of advertised articles of British manufacture held recently in London; whether that exhibition was organised by the retail advertisers themselves, and whether they invited the manufacturers to attend?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to put down that question.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY (IMPORTS).

Mr. DENVILLE: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will favourably consider the advisability of reduced tariffs on foreign goods carried in British vessels?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir.

TARIFF REDUCTIONS.

Mr. MANDER: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any negotiations have recently taken place with regard to tariff reductions by other countries; and whether any offers or proposals of such a kind have been received?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There have been no recent negotiations or proposals for negotiation with foreign countries except on the ordinary basis of mutual most-favoured nation treatment. I may explain, however, that two recent agreements of this description, namely, those concluded with Chile and Salvador, did in fact result in United Kingdom goods securing reductions of duty which had previously been accorded to other countries but withheld from us.

Mr. MANDER: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to continue the negotiations instituted by the late Government with the object of reducing foreign tariffs?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Whenever opportunity offers we shall certainly take advantage of it.

IRON AND STEEL. INDUSTRY.

Mr. PEAT: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion the imports of iron and steel into the United Kingdom bear to the total of iron and steel manufactured in the United Kingdom in September and October of 1931; and how this proportion compared with the proportion of imports of total make in September and October of 1930?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: During September, 1931, the proportion that the imports of pig-iron, ferro-alloys and steel ingots and castings into the United Kingdom bore to the quantity produced in this country was 2.93 per cent., compared with 3.51 per cent. during September, 1930. During October, 1931, the proportion was 4.61 per cent., compared with 3.81 per cent. during October, 1930.

Mr. PEAT: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that steps will be taken forthwith to stem the flow of imports of iron and steel, which are unnecessarily increasing the adverse, trade balance?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The matter is having our constant consideration.

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet received a report from his Department as to whether there are or are not abnormal imports of iron and steel at the present time?

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: May we ask for an announcement on this subject from the right hon. Gentleman before the House rises?

Mr. CLARRY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state the reasons for the exclusion of Great Britain from the Report of Delegation, Command Paper 3601, on the industrial conditions in the iron and steel industries, June, 1930?

The PRIME MINISTER: The reason that this report deals only with the industrial conditions in iron and steel industries abroad is that it was specially prepared to supply information on this subject to the Committee of the Economic Advisory Council which was at that time considering the position of the iron and steel industry in this country.

Mr. CLARRY: When may we expect a report concerning the British industries?

The PRIME MINISTER: That question has been dealt with again and again in this House.

IMPORT RESTRICTIONS (BRITISH COAL).

Lord DUNGLASS: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of countries which limit the amount of British coal to be imported and under what international agreements they do so?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The only countries of substantial importance from the point of view of the United Kingdom coal trade which directly restrict the importation of coal are France, Belgium and Germany. There is no international agreement which limits the right of France and Belgium to impose such restrictions, and the right to apply import restrictions to coal was reserved by Germany under the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty of 1924. I should perhaps add that certain countries, notably Brazil and Spain, whilst not directly controlling importation, enforce requirements that industrial users of coal must consume certain proportions of native coal.

Lord DUNGLASS: Has the right hon. Gentleman in mind the use of similar limitation to goods imported into this country to the prejudice of our agriculture?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Noble Lord will observe that the latter part of my answer referred to the quota system which is in operation in Brazil and Spain. The quota system is being considered here.

COCOA(PRICES)

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the wholesale price of Accra cocoa has fallen 40 per cent. between December, 1928, and November, 1931, and that the retail price of certain well-known proprietary brands of cocoa has fallen only 12½ per cent., and the retail price of loose cocoa has fallen only 4 per cent., during the same period; and mill he therefore take action under the Foodstuffs (Prevention of Exploitation) Act, or other similar Act if applicable; and, if none is applicable, will he request a competent body to institute an inquiry and to publish a report?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The figures mentioned do not, of course, take into account all the factors concerned. Nevertheless I am asking the Food Council to inquire into the matter raised by my hon. Friend.

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Miss CAZALET: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House the figure of the total value, for each of the last three years, of the preferences given by the Dominions to the United Kingdom on our exports to them, and also the similar figure accruing to the Dominions from the preferences given to them by the United Kingdom?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT such information as is available.

Following is the information:

Complete information in regard to the amount of preferential rebates granted by the Dominions (not including India) on United Kingdom goods is only available with respect to the year 1929. It is estimated that during that year the total amount of such preferential rebates aggregated approximately £15,000,000.

The approximate amount of the (gross) preferential rebate allowed on goods consigned from the Dominions (not including India) and delivered for home consumption during the years ended 31st March, 1929, 1930 and 1931 was £3,000,000, £3,500,000 and £3,000,000 respectively.

In all cases the amount of preferential rebate represents the difference between the amount of duty received at the preferential rate and the amount which would have been paid on the same quantities had duty been charged at the full rate.

It will be appreciated that the amount of the preferential rebates is in no sense an accurate measure of the real value of the preferences.

Sir W. DAVISON: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the retained imports of foreign teas in the United Kingdom, which amounted in 1921 to 32,000,000 lbs., had increased in 1930 to 85,000,000 lbs., while the Empire's share in the same period fell from 92 per cent. to 81 per cent.; and whether he can assure the House that
early steps will be taken to secure a preference for British Empire teas, especially having regard to the fact that all British tea entering Holland is subject to an import duty?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I am unable to make any statement at present.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the present very grave position of British tea planters, and will the Government deal with the matter at the earliest possible date?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the position.

SAFEGUARDING DUTIES.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state with respect to what industries Safeguarding Duties have been removed during the period from June, 1929, to the present time; what annual amount of revenue was pre-

THE FOLLOWING TABLE shows the average annual net receipts from Safeguarding Duties which have lapsed since June, 1929:


Articles.
Date when Duty lapsed.
Customs Duties— Net Receipts (Annual Average).




£


Lace and Embroidery (made on net or dissoluble fabric).
30th June, 1930
229,800


Gloves of leather and of fur and cotton fabric gloves.
21st December, 1930
490,800


Mantles for incandescent lighting
21st December, 1930
5,700


Cutlery
21st December, 1930
92,000


Packing and wrapping paper
30th April, 1931
520,000

WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT).

Mr. MANDER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that orders for aeroplane engines for naval aircraft are being placed in this country by Japan; and whether he will consider the advisability of placing an embargo on such orders in present circumstances by international action?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, but I cannot adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. MANDER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is an im-

viously obtained from each; and whether he will make an announcement, without delay, as to the intentions of the Government with regard to re-imposing these duties?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Safeguarding Duties on lace, cutlery, gloves, gas mantles and packing and wrapping paper have expired during the period mentioned. With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission I will circulate particulars of the revenue obtained from these duties in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the last part of the question cutlery, gloves and packing and wrapping paper are included in the Order made on the 20th November under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act.

Sir F. HALL: In the case of those not included in those previously safeguarded, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the duties are re-imposed?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We will look into their merits.

Following are the particulars:

proper thing that this and other countries should be in the position—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is asking for an opinion.

Mr. MANDER: I bad not finished my question.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Clarry.

Mr. MANDER: The question I wanted to put to the Prime Minister was whether he does not think that steps—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not ask what right hon. Gentleman thinks.

YUGOSLAVIA.

Sir F. HALL: 72.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Government of Yugoslavia have promulgated a new Act prohibiting the importation of goods which can be produced in that country; if he will state what were the principal classes of goods exported to Yugoslavia from Great Britain in 1930–31 and their approximate value; and what was the value of the goods imported from Yugoslavia in the same year?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Inquiries are being made into this matter and I should be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend would put his question down for answer next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANY LAW.

Mr. L. SMITH: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will set up without further delay a Departmental Committee to deal with the defects in the Companies Act, 1929, revealed by the Hatry and Kylsant cases, and to recommend constructive methods for preventing limited liability being used any longer as a screen behind which the confidence of the investing public can be abused?

Sir JOHN HASLAM: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, as a result of recent cases in the criminal courts which have shown that unscrupulous persons can prevent ownership of capital controlling that capital in joint stock enterprises, he will now consider amending the Companies Act of 1929 and the regulations for companies operating under a Royal Charter so as to render the Companies Act capable of protecting the public?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Companies Act, 1929, which came into force on the 1st November, 1929, incorporates the revisions which were made in the law by Parliament in 1928 after a thorough inquiry by a departmental committee. In these circumstances the time is hardly ripe for a fresh inquiry, but if my hon. Friends will let me have their suggestions on the particular points which they have in mind I will have them noted for investigation when the question of amending the Companies Act is under consideration.

Mr. SMITH: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that a small inquiry into these matters may well encourage the investing public to put more capital into industrial securities?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That will certainly be kept in mind.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Does not the experience of the last two years show that the longer this Act goes unamended the greater will be the loss to the public?

Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to take any steps to prevent the use of the title British by companies regardless of foreign ownership of the greater part or of the whole of their capital?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: This proposal involves the general question of compelling disclosure of the persons who are beneficial owners of the shares of a company as distinct from those whose names are required to be stated in the documents filed with the registrar. This is a matter of very great difficulty and I am afraid that I could not hold out any hope of introducing legislation which would be necessary to give effect to my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.

Lieut.-Colonel MAYHEW: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the words "Royal" and "Imperial" may only be used in the title of a company with the consent of the Home Secretary, and does he not think that the word "British" presents to nearly all of us an equal if not greater significance than the word "Royal" or the word "Imperial," and will he not take steps to see that the word "British" is suitably safeguarded?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will certainly take note of what my hon. and gallant Friend has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SHIPPING (ALIEN AND COLOURED SEAMEN).

Major SANDEMAN ALLEN: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider setting up a committee, formed of representatives of this House, representatives of the shipowners, and representatives of the trade unions involved, to investigate and report
upon the grievances existing as a result of the employment of coloured seamen in British vessels?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The grievances, to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, have not been brought to my notice, but I shall be pleased to consider any evidence he may have on the subject. On the facts at present before me I see no sufficient reason for appointing a committee on the lines suggested in the question.

Mr. McGOVERN: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of foreign workers engaged on board British ships?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The number of British and foreign seamen engaged at mercantile marine offices in Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the three months ended 30th September, 1931 (including repeated engagements of individuals), was 124,969. Of this number 2,583 were foreigners (other than Asiatics and Africans), and 2,811 were Asiatics and Africans, British and foreign. The number of foreigners among the Asiatics and Africans cannot be stated.

Mr. McGOVERN: Can the right hon. Gentleman do anything to see that unemployed British seamen get these jobs instead of foreigners?

Sir PATRICK FORD: Has the right hon. Gentleman in prospect any legislation or regulation in order to reduce somewhat the proportion of foreign seamen in British ships?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have every sympathy with the object which both my hon. Friends have in view, but I would point out that, in sonic trades, it is desirable that we should not encourage the employment of white seamen as stokers. In those cases, we do not want to see any reduction of native sailors on British ships, but in a general way I shall do everything in my power to encourage the employment of British sailors in preference to foreigners.

Captain A. EVANS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in the classes to which he has referred there is a large number of British coloured seamen available for the employment which offers?

Oral Answers to Questions — BAHAMA ISLANDS (LIGHTHOUSES).

Major COLFOX: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements exist for supervising the efficiency of the Imperial lighthouses in the Bahama Islands; and what is the annual cost to the Exchequer?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: These lighthouses, which are under the management of the Board of Trade, are periodically visited and inspected by an officer appointed by the Department and stationed at Nassau. The charges of the service are borne by the General Lighthouse Fund, not by the Exchequer, and the cost of maintenance averaged approximately £26,600 for the three years ended on 31st March, 1931. In addition, capital expenditure was incurred on renovations of lighthouses during the same years averaging approximately £24,000.

Major COLFOX: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a special ship is kept for this purpose?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.

Mr. POTTER: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the total number of persons prosecuted to date for non-compliance with the quota provisions of the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927; how many convictions have been secured; and whether the total amount of costs and fines imposed and recovered has been sufficient to discharge the total costs and expenses of the legal proceedings instituted by his Department?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answers to the first and second parts of the question are 56 and 46, respectively; in addition to-the 46 convictions five cases were dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act. The total amounts of costs recovered and fines imposed in all the cases were £445 8s.1d. and £439?s., respectively. The total cost incurred by the Department, including travelling expenses of witnesses, was approximately £550.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES (PLEDGES).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is 'aware that many candidates for election to Parliament, previous to the General Election, were asked to sign a document which renounced their rights to vote freely in this House if elected; and if he will take steps to make it illegal to put any such pressure upon Parliamentary candidates?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative. This would seem to be a matter which should be left to the judgment of candidates themselves, and of the electorate in their constituencies.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 49.
asked the Prime Minister what changes have taken place in the personnel of the Economic Advisory Council since the inception of that body?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the supplementary reply which I gave on the 19th November to a question by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Marton).

Captain MACDONALD: There has been no change since then?

The PRIME MINISTER: None.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.

Captain ERSKINE-BOLST: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of War Certificates falling due for redemption next year; and what steps he proposes to take in connection therewith?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The amount of Savings Certificates of the first issue which will be outstanding on the 31st March, 1932, is estimated at approximately £150,000,000, including accrued interest. An announcement respecting an offer of extension or conversion to holders of these Certificates will be made at an early date.

BEER DUTY.

Sir W. DAVISON: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of the Beer Duty paid to
the Inland Revenue for the month of October, 1930, and the amount paid, or payable, at the increased rate for the month of October, 1931?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The only comparison which can be made at the present moment is between the gross amounts of Excise duty assessed for the month of October in each of the years mentioned (but not payable until the following month). These were £6,076,000 in 1930 and £6,123,000 in 1931. I would repeat, however, that it would at present be premature to draw any conclusions as to the effect of the increase in the duty.

Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the apparent failure of the tax to produce revenue, and of the fact that it prevents a number of poor men from getting their accustomed beverage, will the Government take into consideration action will, a view to removing the duty?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: When sufficient facts have been accumulated, the Government will take that question into consideration.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 62.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the effect of the increased beer tax on the hop-growing and barley-growing industries of this country, he will give an early indication that it is the intention of the Government to reduce this tax at the earliest possible opportunity?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and gallant Friend will not expect me to anticipate the next Budget statement.

LAND VALUES TAX.

Mr. BRACKEN: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government will abolish forthwith the organisation which was recently established under Part III of the Finance Act, 1931?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on the 19th November to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Sir V Henderson).

Mr. BRACKEN: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that he has power to suspend forthwith the working of this part of the Act, and will he not, in view of the pledges as to economy that he gave before the last General Election, exercise that power forthwith?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already said that I will make a statement on the subject before the House rises.

Mr. MANGER: Is not this a Measure which the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government think a very good one?

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now make any statement as to the policy of the Government with respect to Part III of the Finance Act, 1931?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on the 19th November to the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall). I can as yet add nothing to that reply.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to tell me when I can put this question down in the hope of getting a reply?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I repeat that I hope to make a statement on the subject before the House rises.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the number of manual and other workers who will be subject to Income Tax in consequence of the provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931, he will consider the immediate introduction of machinery to provide for the payment of such tax due at the source by the employers of the workers concerned?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The deduction by employers of Income Tax from wages has been considered on various occasions in the past, but it has never been found practicable. I am, however, looking into the question again.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take the necessary steps to see that in future all wholesale and retail co-operative societies are made to pay Income Tax under Schedule D and are treated like all other trading concerns for taxation purposes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This raises a question of Budgetary policy, and I am afraid that I cannot anticipate the Budget statement.

SCOTLAND

Mr. TRAIN: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual total contribution from Scotland to the national revenue; and what is the proportion allocated to Scotland, including the defence services, during the last financial year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that reliable statistics are not available, and. could not be collected without a disproportionate expenditure of labour.

Mr. TRAIN: In view of the dissatisfaction in Scotland at not getting its proper proportion, will not my right hon. Friend take steps to give us some information on the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I must warn my hon. Friend that further investigations into this matter might not produce the result be desires.

Mr. TRAIN: I will abide by the result, whatever it is.

STERLING (STABILISATION).

Mr. CROSSLEY: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to defer stabilising the value of the pound sterling until the present bank rate of 6 per cent, has been materially reduced?

Mr. CLARRY: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the principal conditions governing a decision to return to the gold standard?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I can add nothing to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hamonersley) on Tuesday last. The subject is clearly too large to permit of discussion by way of question and answer.

CURRENCY (SILVER).

Mr. CROSSLEY: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government has in view any steps towards regulating the value of silver in a fixed proportion to gold by co-operation with the chief silver-producing and silver-consuming countries; and whether he will bear in mind the importance of this matter to the cotton industry of Lancashire?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the Stockport Division (Mr. Hammersley) on Tuesday last.

Mr. CROSSLEY: Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his views, and consider this question, in view of the report last week of the Silver Association, and also of the recent agreement between the Government of India and the silver producers in America?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that any agreement has been come to between the Government of India, and the producers in America.

ABNORMAL IMPORTATIONS CUSTOMS DUTIES)

Mr. HARRIS: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate has been made as to the probable revenue, if any, from the duties levied under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. Any such estimate would necessarily be based on so many uncertain factors as to possess no real value.

Mr. HARRIS: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman and the Treasury were consulted about the putting on of these various duties before the list was published?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

UNITED SPATES AND FRANCE (BRITISH TREASURY CREDITS).

Mr. LAMBERT: 64.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the credits granted to the Bank of England for approximately £50,000,000 by the Bank of France and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has been repaid; and whether any portion of the credits for £80,000,000 granted to the Treasury has been repaid?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the question, I can add nothing to the statement by the Bank of England published on the 31st October, of which I have already sent a copy to the right hon. Member. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I cannot understand the statement which he sent to me from the Bank of England; and will he kindly say how much of this £30,900,000 has been repaid? It is a very simple matter.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I was not aware that my right hon. Friend could not understand the statement. If he will be good enough to come and see me, I will endeavour to make everything clear to him.

IMPORT DUTIES.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: 69.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that branches of firms abroad sell articles which are taxed under the Safeguarding and McKenna duties to branches of the same firms in England at sums below cost price, thereby avoiding the payment of the proper tariff on those articles; and whether he is prepared to take steps to stop this practice?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): Care is taken to prevent payment of the proper duty being evaded in the way suggested, but, if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars of any specific instances in which he has reason to think this is happening, I will certainly have the facts looked into.

TREASURY PENSIONS ACCOUNT.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 70.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total accumulated surplus in hand at the beginning of the present month from the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and the amount of interest earned by this surplus?

Major ELLIOT: It is estimated that, after giving effect to the transfer required by Section 3 of the National Economy (National Health Insurance) Order, 1931, the balance to the credit of the Treasury Pensions Account on 31st October, 1931, is rather less than £45,000,000. This sum is not, however, properly to be described as a surplus. It is no more than a balance accumulated in the first years of the scheme, which is now diminishing and will be absorbed, together with any accumulations of interest, by the outgoings of the next 10 or 12 years. The interest earned
on the investment of this balance is at present at the rate of approximately £2,000,000 a year.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Has it also been borrowed like the Post Office savings?

PATENT MEDICINE DUTY.

Sir ALFRED BEIT: 71.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that many manufacturers of proprietary medicines are evading the patent medicine duty by ceding their proprietary rights, at the same time retaining the protection and good will of their registered trade names; and whether, in view of the loss of revenue caused by this form bf evasion, he will take steps to bring this practice to an end?

Major ELLIOT: The law povides for exemption from Medicine Stamp Duty in favour of known, admitted and approved remedies, when sold under certain conditions by duly qualified chemists and druggists. I am aware that certain manufacturers have taken steps, one of which is a disclaimer of proprietary rights, to bring their preparations within the scope of that exemption; hut, provided this is within the terms of the Statute, I cannot interfere.

Sir A. BEIT: Is it not the case that, as a result of this evasion, many other manufacturers who still pay the duty will have to follow the same course of evasion, as they cannot face the unfair competition?

Major ELLIOT: If my hon. Friend will look at the answer, he will see that manufacturers have to comply with certain conditions, as to publicity and so on, and manufacturers who comply with those conditions obtain corresponding privileges.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS.

MEMBERS (RAILWAY VOUCHERS).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Members of this House have availed themselves of the opportunity to travel third class between Westminster and their constituencies?

Major ELLIOT: The information in question could only be obtained by a
detailed examination of used vouchers, and then only for a period some time past, and I am satisfied that the labour involved in ascertaining precise figures would not be justified.

Mr. McGOVERN: In view of scientific developments, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider aeroplanes as a new means of travel?

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend think, considering all the other economies which are compulsory throughout the country, that this economy also should be made compulsory?

QUESTIONS (COST).

Wing-Commander JAMES: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, in the interest of economy and for the guidance of new Members, he will state the approximate average cost, in the last financial year, of oral questions asked?

Major ELLIOT: I am afraid that it is not possible to estimate at all closely the cost of supplying answers to Members' questions, but it is no doubt true that considerable expenditure of time and money is involved. Unofficial estimates were made some years ago giving the cost at as much as 21 per question, but the circumstances of each question differ so widely that it would not be possible to give any accurate determination.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Can my hon. and gallant Friend give any estimate of the cost of answering this particular question?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT FACTORY, QUEENSFERRY, FLINTS HIRE.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what steps have recently been taken by his Department to dispose of the remainder of His Majesty's factory at Queensferry, Flintshire; and whether, having regard to the demand by industrial firms for sites for works, and also the large amount of available labour in the district, he will take all possible measures to give the public information as to the suitability of this property?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: About 200 acres of this property have been disposed of. The residue of about 60 acres was offered at a public auction last June without a sale resulting. It was re-advertised last week, and every effort is being made to dispose of it. Particulars of the property are readily available locally; they may also be obtained from the Lands Directorate of the War Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL GALLERY.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will, in the interests of economy, request the trustees of the National Gallery to close the new western rooms, in which pictures cannot be seen during the day, and re-hang the pictures in other parts of the National Gallery, in order that public money may not be wasted by keeping open rooms in which the contents cannot be seen by daylight?

Major ELLIOT: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given yesterday by my hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works to a question by the Member for Newcastle, North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle). The necessity for economy will be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

TERRITORIAL ARMY

Sir REGINALD BLAKER: 73.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the present need for economy, he is prepared to abolish Territorial Associations and to place the administration of the Territorial Army under the direct control of his Department?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): No, Sir.

Sir R. BLAKER: 74.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the question of annual camps for Territorial units will be reconsidered by the present Government?

Mr. COOPER: It is not proposed to alter the decision to suspend the annual training in camp of the Territorial Army for the year 1932, but I may say that the grant for training other than at annual camp for that year has been increased
by more than 33 per cent. There is no intention of suspending annual camps in 1933.

WIDOW'S PENSION CLAIM (MRS. TIMONEY).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 76.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why the widow of the late Lieutenant John Timoney, of 26, Apsley Place, Glasgow, has been refused a pension, seeing that while he was serving with the Royal Army Medical Corps in Egypt, on 8th September, 1930, he was killed on duty by a revolver suddenly going off; and if he will have this case reconsidered?

Mr. COOPER: Lieutenant Timoney ways killed by discharge of his own automatic pistol. He was not on duty at the time. As the hon. Member was informed by the late Secretary of State, this case has been very carefully considered, and in the absence of any fresh facts, I regret that the decision cannot be reconsidered.

BRITISH TROOPS, CYPRUS.

Mr. McGOVERN: 77.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether there have been any casualties among the British troops during the recent disturbances in Cyprus; and what is the total establishment of British forces now stationed in the island?

Mr. cooper: There have been no casualties amongst British troops in Cyprus. The normal establishment of troops in Cyprus is one company of infantry and ancillary troops. According to the latest information available, two additional companies of infantry, a detachment of an armoured car regiment and ancillary troops are temporarily in the island. The armoured car detachment is in process of being withdrawn.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

BORSTAL INSTITUTES.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 78.
asked the secretary of state for Scotland how many Borstal institutes there are in Scotland and how many inmates?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): Persons sentenced to Borstal
detention in Scotland are at present accommodated in one Borstal institution and in four parts of prisons reserved for Borstal cases. The number of inmates on 18th November was 213 males and 16 females.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are the inmates on the increase or the decrease?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I must ask for notice of that question.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking the Borstal boys away from the prisons?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I should like to assure the hon. Member that the most scrupulous care is taken to keep these boys and girls away from the other inmates of the prisons, and the supervisory staff is very carefully selected for this work.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he will take away these Borstal boys and girls from the prisons altogether There is adequate room for them elsewhere.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Are the cases frequently reviewed, so that boys who show signs of coming back to normal behaviour can have their punishment reduced?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Certainly they are reviewed. As regards the previous question, I am assured that the parts of the prisons which have been set apart serve their purpose very well.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In the review of these cases, will the right hon. Gentleman show greater sympathy and clemency than any of his predecessors?

AGRICULTURE.

Lord SCONE: 79 and 80.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether, in view of the losses sustained by Scottish fruit growers 'as the result of the imports of foreign fruit, he is prepared to take steps to restrict such imports;
(2) if he will consider the desirability of controlling by licence, prohibition, or quota, the importation into Scotland of oats and barley, including malting barley?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: These matters along with other questions concerning agriculture are engaging the attention of
the Government. I am not at present, therefore, in a position to make an announcement on the subject.

Lord SCONE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is grave danger of still more arable land going down to grass unless a satisfactory assurance is given very soon?

HOUSING.

Mr. McGOVERN: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is prepared to urge the Second Scottish National Housing Company to reduce the rents of grant-aided steel houses at Sandyhills, Tollcross, Glasgow?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The answer is in the negative. The Second Scottish National Housing Company is bound to fix the rents of steel houses by reference to the rents charged for houses of similar accommodation in the district, and inquiries have satisfied me that this has in fact been done at Sandyhills.

Mr. McGOVERN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these houses are very much inferior to adjoining houses of brick and rough-cast type, and that the tenants are enduring considerable hardships? Would he further consider the advisability of advising this company to reduce the rents?

Mr. SKELTON: No, I have no information which would lead me to suppose that these steel houses are inferior to other houses.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: If the Under-Secretary were to visit these houses in this area, where I live, he would see that they are inferior and that the rents ought to be reduced.

REGISTERS AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT (SALARIES).

Sir P. FORD: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the dissatisfaction which exists among the second-class clerks in the Department of the Registers and Records of Scotland, owing to the fact that the salary scale of youths of 18 to 19 entering the lower executive grade with no more than a secondary education is £100—£15—£400, whereas the scale of the second-class clerks, who have been recruited between the ages of 20 and 25, and have had
prior professional training and qualifications in law, is £80—£7 10s.— £132 10s.—t10—£300; and whether, in view of the negotiations which were in progress in the last Parliament with regard to second-class clerks, he can now state when these clerks will receive terms commensurate with these considerations?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am aware of the dissatisfaction among the second-class clerks referred to on the subject of their rates of remuneration, but I am unable to admit the implications conveyed in the comparison drawn with the executive grade, upon which comparison I am informed that a claim by the second-class clerks was made unsuccessfully before the Civil Service Arbitration Board in 1923. The rates of remuneration of the second-class clerks are necessarily dependent upon a reorganisation of staff in the light of the decisions to be taken on the recommendations of the Committee on the Registration of Writs presided over by Lord Fleming, and upon a satisfactory adjustment of the balance between revenue and expenditure in the Sasines Office. The issues involved in these questions are important and complex, and I regret that I am not yet able to say when a reply can be made to the claims of the second-class clerks; but there will be no avoidable delay in reaching a conclusion.

Sir P. FORD: Is it not a fact that the arbitration was given at a, time when the board was drawing to a close and when the same attention was not paid to it? Further, is it not a fact that the Fleming Report had nothing whatever to do with the qualifications of these clerks but rather with the nature of the work that would be required? Further, is it not a fact—

Mr. SPEAKER: These questions had better be put down.

Mr. D. M. MASON: On a point of Order. It is almost impossible to hear the answer owing to the noise opposite.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am suffering in the same way.

UNEMPLOYED DEMONSTRATION, GLASGOW (ARRESTS).

Mr. MAXTON: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can state the
reasons for the delay in bringing to trial the persons arrested in connection with the unemployed demonstration in Glasgow on let October?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): Of 108 cases arising out of the demonstration referred to, 87 have already been brought to trial and finally disposed of. Of the remainder dates for trial have been fixed in nine cases, and as regards the rest instructions have been given for their disposal. There has, accordingly, been no delay.

Mr. MAXTON: It is now seven or eight weeks since these men were arrested on what is either a very simple charge or no charge at all. Are the police having difficulty in finding evidence in these cases?

The LORD ADVOCATE: No, the police have had no difficulty of any kind in finding evidence. The hon. Member should keep in view that there were 103 cases that had to be carefully investigated and reported upon before proceedings were instructed. He should further keep in view that cases can only be disposed of when Judges are able to find time for their disposal. I can assure him, taking the whole of the facts into consideration in the present cases, that there has been no delay of any kind.

Mr. McGOVERN: If it is no breach of legal privilege, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that I am left at home at Christmas time or, if not, will he give the same consideration as was given to Lord Kylsant and send me to hospital?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of feeling in the matter and that the poorest people were proceeded against in some cases a month ago? In the case of more prominent Members, all this delay takes place while the very poorest people are proceeded against at once.

The LORD ADVOCATE: My hon. Friend is quite misinformed as to the facts. There has been no discrimination of any kind, except that in order that the electoral activities of certain people might not be interfered with, I directed that their cases might stand over until the election was over.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman or—

Mr. SPEAKER: We really cannot have the matter debated.

UNEMPLOYED WORKERS (RENT AND TAXES).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 84.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to protect the large numbers of unemployed in Scotland from the sufferings confronting them during this winter, owing to their inability to pay rent and taxes and their consequent liability to eviction?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: No steps on my part seem necessary for I have no reason to doubt that the local authorities administering public assistance are fully alive to their responsibilities in regard to these cases.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the same reply he has already given to me, namely, that this matter would be dealt with by the Public Assistance Committee Now we have made extensive inquiries, and find that such a statement is inaccurate; it is not true. We want to know what he is going to do.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Train.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. My point of Order is that the Secretary of State for Scotland has given me a reply which is exactly the same as that I received from him a fortnight ago, and we have proved that his reply is a mistake. I want him to go further into the matter and try and get his mistake rectified.

Mr. SPEAKER: There is no point of Order. If the hon. Member will put down another question, perhaps he will get the same reply again?

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT.

Mr. TRAIN: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Government proposes to set up a committee of inquiry into the working of the Local Government Act, 1929, in Scotland?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Until further experience has been gained of the working of the Act it would in my opinion be premature to consider setting up a committee.

Mr. TRAIN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scotland has been promised time and again an inquiry into the working of the Act, which has now been working for two years and a half?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: A number of modifications have been made in the administrative schemes, and there is need, I think, of getting these schemes further tried before we embark upon a formal inquiry. The possibility of having an inquiry, as was announced by the Prime Minister, has certainly not been abandoned.

AGRICULTURAL SECURITY CORPORATION.

Mr. MACPHERSON: 86.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to give the House any information with regard to the corporation for agricultural credits in Scotland?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I would refer my right hon. Friend to the answer which I gave last Tuesday to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Central Aberdeenshire (Mr. R. W. Smith) and to which, in the meantime, I have nothing to add.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Has nothing been done within the last week?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: As I explained to the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen last week, this scheme has been approved by the Department concerned and is now with the banks. We can do nothing until the banks have approved the Articles and Memorandum of Association and as soon as they have done so there will be no delay.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Cannot my right hon. Friend complain to the banks and point out the strong feeling of resentment there is on the part of Scottish Members that Scotland is being treated, in comparison with England, very adversely.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: My right hon. Friend had better address that question to the banks.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Colonel GRETTON: May I ask a question upon Business before the Motion to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule is put?
Can the Leader of the House inform us what Business it is proposed to take after eleven o'clock?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): Perhaps I may answer that question. If possible, it is proposed to get the remaining stages of the Statute of Westminster Bill and the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Money Resolution. If, as the Debate proceeds, we see that more time is needed for the Statute of Westminster Bill, then inquiries at the Whips' Office will be made. We should like to see what takes place, but at the moment we adhere to the statement which was made yesterday.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure us that at any rate the Irish Amendment of importance to the Statute of Westminster Bill will not be taken after eleven o'clock and that he is not seeking to make us go into the Division Lobby in order to make us pass this important Statute after eleven o'clock, because such a procedure, after the strong pledge given by the Solicitor-General, would be highly improper.

Captain MARGESSON: As the Prime Minister stated yesterday, there is no intention whatever of asking for a Division at a late hour. Of course, no important Division will be asked for at an unreasonable hour. We must see how the Debate proceeds before we decide what is to be the course of the proceedings.

Colonel GRETTON: What is a reasonable hour? Of course, no one would wish to carry the Debate over for the sake of half-an-hour, but what does the hon. and gallant Member mean by reasonable hour?

Captain MARGESSON: As I have said, there is no intention by the Prime Minister of asking the House to sit late and take important decisions at an early hour to-morrow morning. We shall have to see how the Debate proceeds, and then, if necessary and representations are made and it is found that the Debate has been protracted, something will be done to accommodate the convenience of Members of the House. There is no intention of asking that an important decision shall be arrived at at some inconvenient hour.

Earl WINTERTON: Can my hon. And gallant Friend say whether, if there is any alteration of Business, it will affect the Business set down for to-morrow?

Captain MARGESSON: I think we must be allowed to see how the Debate proceeds to-day. In any case, if extra time is to be afforded, I do not see any reason why the Business set down for tomorrow need necessarily be altered. I think the same arrangements could be carried out.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether if in any case he intends to go on with the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Money Resolution?

Captain MARGESSON: The Report stage of the Money Resolution, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is exempted Business, and we hope, if possible, to get the Report stage of the Financial Resolution to-night.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 404; Noes, 38.

Division No. 18.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Blaker, Sir Reginald


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Blindell, James


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Balniel, Lord
Borodale, Viscount


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bossom, A. C.


Albery, Irving James
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Boulton, W. W.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman {Llverp'l, W.)
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'th, Centr'l)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Boyce, H. Leslie


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald


Aske, Sir William Robert
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)


Atkinson, Cyril
Bernays, Robert
Braithwaite, J, G. (Hillsborough)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Brass, Captain Sir William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Briscoe, Richard George


Broadbent, Colonel John
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Levy, Thomas


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Liddall, Walter S.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lister, Rt. Hon. sir Philip Cunliffe-


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Nawb'y)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick


Browne, Captain A. C.
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Buchan, John
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Burghley, Lord
Gledhill, Gilbert
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Burnett, John George
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Butler, Richard Austen
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Mabane, William


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Goldle, Noel B.
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)


Caine, G. R. Hall
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Campbell, Rear-Admt. G. (Burnley)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McCorquodale, M. S.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Grimston, R. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Carver, Major William H.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Castiereagh, Viscount
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
McEwen, J. H. F.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Gunston, Captain D. W.
McKeag, William


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
McKie, John Hamilton


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hales, Harold K.
McLean, Major Alan


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Chotzner, Alfred James
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Christle, James Archibald
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Clarke, Frank
Hanley, Dennis A.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Clarry, Reginald George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Magnay, Thomas


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Harbord, Arthur
Maitland, Adam


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hartington, Marquess of
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hartland, George A.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Colville, Major David John
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Conant, R. J. E.
Harve,. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Manningham-Butler, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Cook, Thomas A.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Cooke, James D.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Cooper, A. Duff
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Martin, Thomas B.


Copeland, Ida
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John M.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Meller, Richard James


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Mills, Sir Frederick


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hepworth, Joseph
Milne, Charles


Craven-Ellis, William
Herbert, George (Rotherham)
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hillman, Dr. George B.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Crookshank, Capt, H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Mitcheson, G. G.


Crossley, A. C.
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Molson, A. Harold Elsdale


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hopkinson, Austin
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Morgan, Robert H.


Curry, A. C.
Hornby, Frank
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Horobin, Ian M.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Howard, Tom Forrest
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Denville, Alfred
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Munro, Patrick


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.


Dickie, John P.
Hurd, Percy A.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Donner, P. W.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Doran, Edward
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. sir R. (Montr'se)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Drewe, Cedric
Hutchison, w. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peters'fld)


Duckworth, George A. V.
Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.
North, Captain Edward T.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Llonel
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Nunn, William


Duggan, Hubert John
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Oman, sir Charles William C.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Jamieson, Douglas
Ormiston, Thomas


Dunglass, Lord
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Eady, George H.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Owen, Major Goronwy


Eden, Robert Anthony
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Edge, Sir William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Patrick, Colin M.


Edmondson, Major A, J.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Ker, J. Campbell
Pearson, William G.


Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Peat, Charles U.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Kimball, Lawrence
Penny, Sir George


Elmley, Viscount
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Petherick, M.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Knebworth, viscount
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Knight, Holford
Pickering, Ernest H.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, s.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Pike, Cecil F.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Potter, John


Everard, W. Lindsay
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Law, Sir Alfred
Power, Sir John Cecil


Ferguson, Sir John
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Fermoy, Lord
Leckie, J. A.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Flanagan, W. H.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Pybus, Percy John


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Lees-Jones, John
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)




Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Ramsbotham, Herswald
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Ramsden, E.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Rankin, Robert
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Train, John


Ratcliffe, Arthur
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. sir Walter D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Rathbone, Eleanor
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Somerset, Thomas
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Soper, Richard
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Remer, John R.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E,
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Weymouth, Viscount


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)
White, Henry Graham


Ross Taylor, Waller (Woodbridge)
Steel- Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Stevenson, James
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Stewart, William J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Runge, Norah Cecil
Stones, James
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Storey, Samuel
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stourton, John J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Russell,Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wise, Alfred R.


Salmon, Major Isidore
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Withers, Sir John James


Salt, Edward W.
Summersby, Charles H.
Womersley, Walter James


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n, S.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Templeton, William P.
Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thorn, Lieut.-Colonel John Gibb
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Savery, Samuel Servington
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Scone, Lord
Thomas, Major J. B. (King's Norton)



Shakespeare, Geoffrey H,
Thompson, Luke
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thornson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Mr. Russell Rea.


Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Thorp, Linton Theodore



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas w.
McGovern, John


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major James


Buchanan, George
Healy, Cahir
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Cove, William G.
Hirst, George Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Devlin, Joseph
Leonard, William



Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Mr. Duncan Graham and Mr. John.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had agreed to the following Resolution, which they had directed him to report to the House:

That, after a Bill has been under consideration in Standing Committee, no application for changes in the composition of that Committee in respect of that Bill shall be entertained by the Committee of Selection.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they
had selected the following Eight Members to be the Chairmen's Panel, and to serve as Chairmen of the Five Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47: Mr. Cape, Sir Cyril Cobb, Mr. Entwistle, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. Duncan Millar, Mr. William Nicholson, Sir Hugh O'Neill, and Sir Samuel Roberts.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL) (PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of Section 1, Sub-section (3), of the Parliament Act, 1911, they had appointed Mr. Cape and Mr. William Nicholson from the Chairmen's Panel,
with whom Mr. Speaker shall consult, if practicable, before giving his certificate to a Money Bill.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899) (PANEL).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That, in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, they had selected the following Eleven Members to form the Parliamentary Panel of Members of this House to act as Commissioners: Sir Adrian Baillie, Sir Samuel Chapman, Earl of Dalkeith, Sir Patrick Ford, Mr. Leonard, Major MacAndrew, Mr. Maclay, Mr. Maclean, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Albert Russell, and Mr. James Stuart.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE) (PANEL).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Eleven Members to be the Panel to serve on Standing Orders Committees under Standing Order No. 98: Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Earl of Dalkeith, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Major Leighton, Mr. Mander, Major-General Sir Newton Moore, Sir Frank Sanderson, Mr. Annesley Somerville, Mr. Tinker, Sir Kenyon Vaughan Morgan, and Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (UNOPPOSED BILLS COMMITTEE) (PANEL).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had selected the following Eight Members to be the Panel to serve on Unopposed Bills Committees under Standing Order No. 111: Mr. Charles Brown, Mr. Chotzner, Mr. Ellis, Sir Bertram Falle, Mr. Logan, Mr. James Reid, Mr. Smith-Carington, and Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Colonel GRETTON: Before we proceed with the Committee stage, Sir Dennis, would you be prepared, for the convenience of the Committee to indicate the Amendments which you propose to call; also those which you rule out of order and those which you propose to group?

4.0 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: On Clause 3, which is the first Clause on which there are any Amendments on the Order Paper, I do not propose to select both the first and the third Amendment. I shall call the first Amendment, and if it is discussed I do not propose to call the third Amendment. In regard to the Amendments on Clause 10, the first three obviously form one Amendment. I have had handed in other Amendments which are in place of those, and which only amount to a slightly different form of words. I do not propose to rule any of the Amendments as out of order, but it must depend on the progress of the Debate whether I decline to select any of them. At the moment I have no intention to decline to select any of the Amendments. After Clause 3 two or three of the Amendments are consequential on earlier ones.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: In regard to the Amendments on Clause 3, am I to understand that it will be permissible to adopt this procedure, that you will call the first Amendment and put the first and the third Amendments, allowing the Committee to vote for the first or the third, and also allowing a general discussion on the subject matter of both Amendments? They concern the same subject matter, but they are alternative ways of amending the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: I propose to call the first Amendment. If it is not moved, I shall, in due course, call the third Amendment, but, if it is moved, I shall not select the third Amendment.

Clauses 1 (Meaning of "Dominion" in this Act); and 2 (Validity of laws made by Parliament of a Dominion) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Power of Parliament of Dominion to legislate extra-territorially.)

Sir GERALD HURST: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that such laws do not conflict in their terms with laws prevailing in the United Kingdom or in other Dominions which have extra-territorial operation or with international law.
May I, at the beginning, make two observations which, I think, can fairly be made, not only on my own behalf, but also on behalf of my hon. Friends whose names are attached to this Amendment? The first is, that in moving this Amendment there is not the slightest idea of making any cave or revolt against the National Government. That suggestion has been made, but, of course, we are all loyal supporters of the National Government. It is not, however, in the interest of the National Government, or of the nation, or of any of the Dominions to pass a Measure which is full of obscurities, and which is not based upon the very best methods possible to achieve the end which the Government have in view. Secondly, in moving this Amendment, there is not the slightest idea of combating or challenging in any way the famous formula as to equality of status laid down by the late Lord Balfour in 1926. No doubt this House is committed to that formula, but it does not follow in the least that the House is committed to every word in the Measure now before it. The aim of the draftsmen of the Measure has been to give effect to the formula, but draftsmen are fallible men, like ourselves. No sanctity attaches to the exact words used by them. We, as a House of Commons, are entitled to ask: "Where are we going?" and I cannot think that any representative of the Government will really urge that this House is committed to every sentence in this Bill, and is disqualified from examining every Clause on its merits, and arriving at a fair and free decision as to whether those Clauses are in the best form.
This Amendment deals with Clause 3 of the Measure, which declares that
the Parliament of a Dominion has full power to make laws having extra-territorial operation.
At the present time, the Dominions do not enjoy such power, except the very limited power of dealing with coastal
trade and matters of that sort when dealing with what goes on in territorial waters. There has been, and there is to-day, a range of law outside the jurisdiction of the Dominion Legislatures. That range is described very roughly in paragraph 38 of the Report of the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation, in which it alludes to questions concerning fisheries, taxation, shipping, air navigation, marriage, criminal law, deportation, and the enforcement of laws against smuggling and unlawful immigration. But there are other branches of law also which are not touched by Dominion legislation—Imperial British nationality, naturalisation, the status of married women and allegiance. The reason why this range of jurisdiction has not been exercised by Dominion Legislatures is not because of any alleged or imputed inferiority of the States. The reason has been that it has been universally recognised that, upon all these matters of world-wide importance and world-wide interest it is desirable, from the point of view not only of this Kingdom but from the point of view of every Dominion, to have as much uniformity of law as possible. These are not subjects in which the historical and racial differences which divide the members of the British Empire to some extent from one another apply at all. They are matters in which the greatest possible uniformity is desirable.
These matters of jurisdiction have passed through three stages in the history of English law. There was a time when our Parliament legislated for British subjects all over the world without regard to the self-governing Dominions. The second stage was arrived at when this country passed legislation leaving it within the power of Dominion Legislatures to adopt the same legislation, and that course has been followed with regard to copyright law in 1911, and with regard to the British Nationality Act, 1914, which was adopted with, I think, very slight modifications by Australia and New Zealand. In later years, since 1926, the third stage has been reached in which legislation on those lines has been proposed, but subject to consultations and agreements first with the Dominions. These stages have all made towards unity and uniformity, be-
cause it is not in the interest of the Empire that there should be seven complete systems of law. There are anomalies in the present system with regard to naturalisation, uncertainties and doubts; at the same time, British citizenship has been so interpreted, and the extra-territorial jurisdiction of this Parliament has been so exercised, as to render the ambit of those anomalies as small as possible.
What is the effect of Clause 3? It really means that, apart from the invaluable personal link of the common Sovereign, there is a liability to a conflict of laws with regard to extra-territorial legislation between seven self-governing countries, and I hope that whoever speaks on behalf of the Government on this Amendment will deal with that point. Is it not a fact that Clause 3 in its present form opens the door to a specific conflict of laws with regard to a great range of legislation between the seven parties to this Statute? This must mean very great inconvenience and very uncomfortable clashes not only between members of the British Commonwealth, but also the greatest uncertainty among individuals as to what the law is. Take the ease of nationality. Under the law of the Irish Free State anybody who had been resident in Ireland for seven years, in 1922 became automatically an Irish citizen who may be, and probably will be, a British national from our point of view, and if this Clause is passed, and you really get the idea of two nationalities within the common Commonwealth, a man may be in point of law an Irish national and an English national at the same time. He may be subject to two conflicting systems of law. It is very difficult to know what would be right in that case. If such a man died in Italy, what would be his power of testation? We refer this question to the law of the domicile, but that law refers it back to the law of the man's nationality. What is that man's nationality? Is it English or Irish?
There are countless questions such as those relating to marriage, to the capacity to make 'a will, and to the devolution of property on intestacy. Then, again, there is the very difficult question which is raised in paragraph 44 of the Report, and which is ignored in the Bill. Paragraph 44 says:
In connection with the exercise of extraterritorial legislative powers, we consider that provision should be made for the customary extra-territorial immunities with regard to internal discipline enjoyed by the armed forces of one Government when present in the territory of another Government with the consent of the latter.
In other words, some specific provision was recommended by this Committee to be inserted in the Statute to meet the case of a British garrison sent to a Dominion, or kept on garrison duty within the frontiers of a Dominion. That recommendation has not been acted upon, and no such provision is made. If this Clause is passed in its present form, with no such provision made, it will mean that the arm of British law will not be long enough to maintain discipline in a British Army garrisoned, say, in a port in Ireland, and the garrison will be subject to the local law. That would be the result of the non-observance of paragraph 44.
I only mention what might be regarded as of minor detail, resulting from the conflict of laws. I do not wish to raise the graver questions of conflict of laws which may very readily suggest themselves to the imaginations of hon. Members, such as may arise from conflicting advice being given to the Crown by the Governments of different members of the British Commonwealth of Nations and will raise infinite difficulties. If, in addition to conflicting advice, you have a conflict in extra-territorial legislation, the result will be positively disastrous. It may be said, on behalf of the Bill, that clashes of this sort are impossible, and that we have to rely upon a reasonable understanding, forbearance and intelligence in those who govern the countries, and who are not likely to encourage clashes of this sort. That is what we rely upon at the present time. That; reliance upon mutual forbearance and understanding has been the cement which has kept the Empire so loyally together.
We have regarded the Empire, just as we regard the State, as a living organism that grows, and where changes of the very greatest importance can be made without being incorporated in any written or rigid constitution, but which will be recognised by those who are responsible for the government of the Dominions. That is the present system. By this Bill we are substituting, for the system which is based upon mutual
understanding, a written constitution, and those questions in the future will not be simply questions of conduct and policy, but will become also questions of law. They are to be interpreted, not by the wishes and the sentiments of those who are, for the time being, governing the different members of the Empire, but as legal matters, according to the true construction of the Statute.
We have put forward this Amendment as a Proviso that such laws do not conflict in their terms with laws prevailing in the United Kingdom, or in other Dominions which have extra-territoriality, or with international law. The aim of that Proviso is to leave, over and above the obvious functions of a municipal legislature legislating for its own internal affairs, a margin where we can have uniformity, so far as it is possible to have uniformity, and where what has been agreed upon by the United Kingdom and the Dominions can be given free play, along with those practical rules and principles, which are so recognised as international law that they form part of our common law. An Amendment of this type need not be a permanent part of the law of the Empire, because if advantage is taken of the next Imperial Conference, it may be possible to give effect to the spirit of the third Amendment, which you, Sir, are not going to call, but which provides that the Section shall not come into operation
until a convention has been ratified by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and every Dominion Parliament establishing uniformity with regard to laws having extraterritorial operation throughout the Empire.
If the Proviso which I am moving were incorporated in the Statute, it would be possible, at the next Imperial Conference, to make an appeal to arrive at uniformity, in general Imperial matters as to which there is no conflict of opinion between the Dominions and this country. It is of the first importance to establish the closest possible uniformity of spirit and of outlook. I know that it is not your intention to call that Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Hopkin Morris), but the spirit of that Amendment is in the Amendment which I am moving. I feel that all hon. Members must realise the need for having a
common law of the Empire or Commonwealth, in those non-contentious, non-national but Imperial matters, as to which a conflict of law would be of the gravest disadvantage to the British Commonwealth of Nations.
I should like to ask the learned Solicitor-General if it is not a fact that Clause 3 opens the door to a greatly increased conflict of law. There is a conflict of law, here and there, at the present time, between the United Kingdom and the Dominions, but is it not a fact that the introduction of seven extraterritorial systems of law, in place of one, must lead to an increased conflict of law I Secondly, does the learned Solicitor-General not think that conflict of laws is in itself a bad thing, and that it should he the object of Imperial statesmanship to lessen that conflict of laws? That is a view which I am sure will commend itself to anybody who has at heart the true interests, not only of our nation, but of the Dominions as well. The present law is not the result of any arrogation of supremacy or superiority by the Mother Country, but is simply the result of the deep-felt need for uniformity of nationality and citizenship, and of law, among the members of the same Commonwealth throughout the world.
I suggest that this Proviso deserves very serious consideration by the Committee. We were told that we must not criticise this Bill too much, and that it is a good thing to make a leap in the dark. What is the good of a leap in the dark? We are entitled on these matters to be guided by the best opinion and the best experience that we can get, and my object in moving this Amendment is that, if we have to take this plunge and walk in darkness, at any rate we may try to preserve as many rays of light as possible, to lead our footsteps amid the encircling gloom.

Mr. ATKINSON: This is one of the matters, in relation to the Bill, which deserves full consideration. Every hon. Member must have been struck by the extraordinarily wide language of the Clause. A Dominion is to be given full power to make laws having extra-terri-torial operation. There is not a single nation in the world which has full powers
to make laws of extra-territorial operation. Normally, a nation can only legislate in respect of its own territory and its own people, and with regard to foreigners can only legislate in so far as they come within the jurisdiction of that nation. The most complicated and difficult questions are constantly arising when one nation attempts to make laws to bind foreigners outside its own territory, questions which we come up against where attempts are made to create fishery offences outside territorial waters, and in conflict of law with regard to marriage and divorce. All sorts of difficulties arise once a nation attempts to legislate for other than its own nationals. The principle, which you will find laid down by the authorities, can be put in these words: That, in general, one nation cannot assume jurisdiction which goes beyond the limits established by the common consent of nations. In other words, they cannot attempt to infringe what has come to be recognised as international law.
With regard to our Empire, one thing I should have thought everybody would agree upon, and that is, that it is tremendously desirable that there should be uniformity with regard to an international or Empire code of law, dealing with extra-territorial questions. One would have thought that uniformity was essential, yet it is here proposed to set up seven or eight different legislatures, and to give them all power to legislate differently in regard to matters which must overlap. Let me give you an illustration to show how it would work out. Suppose that Canada proceeded to pass legislation prohibiting anybody fishing, in waters which they chose to regard as Canadian waters, beyond the three-mile limit? Suppose that Newfoundland thought the same thing, and did the same thing, passing similar legislation in respect of the same waters. Nothing in this Bill can give Canada any right to legislate with regard to foreigners, but this question does not affect the rights of foreigners at all. What we do in this Bill may affect the rights of our own subjects, and of members of other Dominions. Suppose that Canada passed legislation of that sort, and proceeded to arrest British fishermen for fishing in waters reserved for themselves, and that we set up the argument: "You have no
right to go in for extra-territorial legislation of that kind." They would say: "Look at Section 3 of the Statute of Westminster, which gives us full powers" —not the powers which they usually exercise and which are exercised by international law—"You have given us full power to make laws having extra-territoriality. What effect is to be given to the word 'full'." There would be very good arguments on their part to say, so far as our own subjects and the nationals of other Dominions are concerned, that we have given them rights against us and against those nationals, to a wider extent than they possessed against nationals of other countries.
4.30 p.m.
Take a very complicated branch of law, that of copyright. Suppose that Canada choose to say that anyone who in any country infringed the Canadian law of copyright should be liable to a fine. Suppose that there was an infringement here, and that it was an infringement according to Canadian law but not according to our own law. Of course they could not possibly fine a man here. But suppose that the man here had property in Canada. He could be proceeded against and fined there; there could be service outside the jurisdiction and a fine levied on his property. One can imagine all sorts of questions arising in connection with merchant shipping law. We may have our own regulations, as we have, relating to merchant shipping. Canada may choose to have different regulations regarding the employment of Canadian seamen. Let me give an illustration which may perhaps seem silly. Suppose that Canada said that no Canadian should be employed on any ship throughout the world for less than five dollars a day. Suppose that a Canadian joined a ship in Liverpool at four dollars a day, and sailed to Canada. The Captain could be arrested for breaking the Canadian law by employing a Canadian seaman at less than five dollars a day. The moment we protested and said to Canada, "You cannot legislate with regard to matters of that sort," they would reply, "Why not? You have given us full power to make laws with extra-territorial operation. Cannot we legislate with regard to Canadian subjects throughout the world? What do you mean when you say that you have
given us full power to make laws of that kind?"
I raise the points that I have in my mind. It seems to me that the use of this word "full" may lead to all sorts of difficulties. This is a Bill which will regulate the relations of the Dominions for hundreds of years, for all we know. No one can tell what questions will arise. With regard to Ireland all sorts of disputes may arise as to the territorial waters of the two countries. Ire land may have one view of territorial waters and we may take another. I do not know who is to settle the conflict between the two countries. It is quite clear that if this Bill is passed there will not be much left of the right of appeal to the Privy Council of this country. Once that appeal has gone who is to settle how far the power given by this Clause has been legally exercised? It becomes a matter of discussion and dispute and someone has to give way. I support the Amendment, because I hold that we ought not to be put in a worse position than that in which we would be under international law if the Dominions were foreign countries. Under the Bill we would be in a worse position, and no one can complain of the proposed limitations being added to the Clause. I understood that there was no intention to give any Dominion power to infringe what is the recognised international law. It is important that we should try to secure uniformity of extra-territorial law so far as the Empire is concerned. Therefore, the first Amendment is fully justified in providing that nothing shall be done which is in conflict with the law of this country.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I think it is convenient, at the outset of these Committee proceedings, to remind the Government of the pledges that they have given with regard to this matter. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council will remember that the learned Solicitor-General promised us, in the most generous terms, consideration of any Amendment that might be brought forward. He said:
I am not giving a promise to accept any particular Amendment, but I am undertaking—and I hope the House will accept it on behalf of my right hon. Friend—that, with the opportunities for consideration
which, no doubt, will be given to all these important matters, every single Amendment shall be considered on its merits without any desire to compel the House to a particular course of action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1931; col. 1248, Vol. 259.]
There are a great many of us in this House who take all these legal Amendments, without reference to the specific question of Ireland, extraordinarily seriously. We regard this as the first charter for the future of our great Empire. We think that it is only in harmony with our duty that we as a Committee of the Whole House should consider everything honourably and conscientiously to the best of our ability. Hon. Members must realise how hopelessly inadequate and hopelessly unsuitable this tribunal is for the discussion of these matters. We have beard and we will hear learned speeches from eminent lawyers discussing what they in their learning know and can judge about a Statute of this kind, not matters of interest to the general body of the House, not matters upon which the general body of the House would wish or feel it proper to base an opinion. But this is the tribunal which has been chosen by the Government to discuss the first Statute that is to give a constitution to the Empire.
Of course, the Bill should have gone to a committee of experts. It makes me feel miserable and ashamed to think that this moment should have been chosen by the Government for the discussion of this Statute. It ought to have been sent to a joint committee of Lords and Commons, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). Such a committee would have been able to thrash it out month by month and perhaps year by year. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. They do not realise that the Dominions have had years to consider this matter. Hon. Members may not have read the learned speeches of Imperial statesmen like Mr. Latham, who has made great contributions to the subject. I do not know whether those speeches have been read by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. The right hon. Gentlemen would realise at once that the Parliament of Australia is second in no degree in Imperial maters to this House, and that it has given far greater and more careful consideration to this ques-
tion than the National Government proposes that the House of Commons should be able to do. The Bill has been discussed throughout the Empire; on a number of occasions it has come up and has been examined with care. The Dominions look to this House to consider it and amend it.
I have reminded the right hon. Gentleman of the pledge given by the Solicitor-General. I would remind him again of the pledges given to-day by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. He was asked specifically whether he proposed to take a vote on the Irish question after eleven o'clock at night. He gave an answer with which I at any rate was satisfied, that the Government had no intention of taking a vote at a late stage on so important a matter. I regard that as a pledge of honour. I regard all the Amendments on the Paper as Amendments which we must argue and thrash out and try to get the Government to accept. We are not wedded to any particular form of words, as the Government arc, but we ask the Government to discuss this matter seriously like men of honour.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now making a speech which is more appropriate to the Second Reading. He has been speaking for nearly five minutes without having come to the Amendment.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I will immediately expedite my approach to the Amendment. I gather that your Ruling does not rule out any arguments which I may found upon the third Amendment on the Paper, at the end of the Clause to add the words:
Provided that this Section shall not come into operation in any Dominion until a convention has been ratified by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and every Dominion Parliament establishing uniformity with regard to laws having extraterritorial operation throughout the Empire.

The CHAIRMAN: I am prepared to allow reasonable latitude in the discussion of the first Amendment as there is a principle involved in it; and, of course, it would be in order to make reference to the third Amendment.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: The Bill is described as a Bill
To give effect to certain resolutions passed by Imperial Conferences held in the years 1926 and 1930.
This is a subject which I wish to clear up at the very outset. I read in the report of the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation and Merchant Shipping Legislation, 1929, the following on page 9, paragraph (b):
The practicability and most convenient method of giving effect to the principle that each Dominion Parliament should have powe0r to give extra-territorial operation to its legislation in all cases where such operation is ancillary to provision for the peace, order and good government of the Dominion.
It is clear that there was a wise Conservative Government in power, or at any rate that some of them were wise enough to put that important proviso upon any extra-territorial powers which were given to the Dominions. It is interesting to see that this was agreed to by the other Dominions; at any rate there is no record on the proceedings that that safeguard in regard to peace, order and good government by the Dominion should not be reserved. I my-self, perhaps, think that that would have been the best way to have moved this Amendment, except that it would have been so vague and would have led to a greater conflict of law than it was in- tended to avoid. However, it was a wise reservation, but difficult to work out. Now we find, according to the latest re- commendation, which was the result of a hopelessly discredited Government, the last Socialist Administration, who were responsible for this report now being laid before Parliament, that that safeguard and reservation with regard to peace, order and good government of the Empire is withdrawn—a safeguard which might have preserved some semblance of unity. We read on page 16, at the bottom:
With regard to the extent of the powers so to be declared [on extra-territorial matters] we are of opinion that the recognition of the powers of a Dominion to legislate with extra-territorial effect should not be limited either by reference to any particular class of persons, or by any reference to laws ancillary to provision for the peace, order and good government of the Dominion.'
That shows a very strange falling off from the original safeguards given by the Conference of 1927, a falling off which is utterly to be deplored. It is difficult, of course, to work out a conservative safeguard. The way in which it has been worked out is simply to cut it away. In the first place, some explanation should
be given by the Solicitor-General of that change of front, which was a most important change of front. The third Amendment on the Paper certainly expresses the true intentions of even the last Imperial Conference. You will find, if you look through these documents, that there is again and again embodied in these reports the principle that you should have uniformity of laws pertaining to extra-territorial matters throughout the Empire. Indeed, on certain matters, merchant shipping especially, there has been machinery set up to create uniformity. But there is nothing about it in this Bill.
In the three Amendments which we are to propose we ask the Government to suspend the operation of this Bill until they can get a convention of the British Empire set up to create uniformity. As regards merchant shipping, there has been a convention already agreed, and it only awaits ratification. Why make confusion worse confounded by passing this Bill and destroying that uniformity before you build up a new uniformity? I am prepared to subscribe to the principle that the old order has passed, and that a new order has come into being, upon which you can make Imperial laws only by agreement between the Dominions. I take that step reluctantly but with conviction. But before we destroy the uniformity of the old we must build up the new.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council to consider whether this is not an inopportune stage at which to destroy the old uniformity. I ask him to consider the statesmen of Dominion statesmen on this matter. I know that he would respect and honour the opinion of Mr. Latham in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Mr. Latham said:
I believe that if an Imperial Statute declares that a Parliament of the Dominion has full power to make laws having extraterritorial operations, and this were recognised as putting the Dominions and Great Britain on the same footing, serious confusion might arise. I suggest that it is unnecessary, and indeed impossible, to put the Dominion Legislatures in the same position as the British Legislature in this regard, and that it would be unwise to endeavour to do so.
That is the opinion which he, as an Australian statesman, held. I go further and I think that this Committee is en-
titled to go further than that. Let us build up the new uniformity, but not destroy the old uniformity. You are destroying the old uniformity if you pass this Statute word for word. Those who put forward these Amendments are not committed to any form of words. We are not like the Government in that respect. We have had this Statute hurled in our faces at the last minute. We have had no power or opportunity to consult expert draftsmen, as the Government have had for years past. Those of us who have been keenly interested in this matter, whose feelings of Imperial patriotism have been aroused sufficiently for them to take an interest in this Statute at all, have had to sit down and work the matter out and try to get the best Amendments we could in the time at our disposal, and I assure the Committee that we have done our best. But, as I say, we are not committed to any form of words. These two Amendments, the first and the third, embody a most important practical safeguard. I believe that you would find agreement with them in this country, if only the issue became well known, and, not only in this country, but in every part of the Empire.
Why should we paralyse ourselves in these times when the gales of world corn-petition are blowing in upon us from every quarter—it is madness to do so—in order to pass a Statute to which apparently everybody is committed, but which nobody likes? We are asked to approve of the Staute in this Committee because of reasons of policy in the past in regard to which we are not committed. The proper position and importance of this Statute have not yet been appreciated in this country or explained by those organs of public opinion whose duty it is to explain to the people what is happening in such matters. I am, perhaps, transgressing on more general lines again, but I wish to emphasise the fact that this point about extra-territoriality is one of extreme importance to the British Empire. When I read in the "Times" that no agreement made between the various Governments at the Conference could deprive Parliament of the right to discuss the Statute as fully as it pleased, and make any amendment it desired, I was delighted because I thought that this question of extra-territoriality might be thrashed out and that there might be
some opportunity for people to understand it and for Members of the House of Commons to understand it. But of course in the following week I read in the "Times" that some Members of the House of Commons were asking that two days should be devoted to discussing the Bill in Committee and were threatening to propose nearly a score of Amendments. I am amazed at the strange changes which take place in the life of a great newspaper. They are beyond the intelligence of a poor private individual who holds the same opinion sometimes for weeks, sometimes for months, sometimes even for years on end.
What we have been fighting for in this matter is to have the Statute properly understood. We wish that its technical aspects should be properly explained. We hold that a Committee of the Whole House is an unsuitable tribunal to discuss extra-territoriality. It is a question which ought to be submitted to the finest lawyers in the world, who are collected along the passage there. Everybody knows that. You, Sir Dennis, will perhaps forgive me if I conclude on the same note of irrelevance as that with which I began. I repeat that the House of Commons is an unsuitable tribunal to discuss this technical question of law and that the responsibility lies on the Government for having taken the course which they have taken.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) in his concluding observations, has suggested that the House of Commons is not fit to discuss this important Statute and that it had better be sent to another place where there are more eminent persons who are better fitted to take part in such a discussion. May I beg his assistance in sending this Bill to that place where he says it will he discussed to better advantage than it can be discussed here? The hon. Member invited us, I am sure sincerely, to treat the Amendments on the Paper seriously. I think it is a little hard to suggest that they are not receiving serious consideration. At any rate, we should not be reproached with failing to give them serious consideration.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman with
great respect not to suggest that I said that without reason? There was very good reason why I made that observation.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think I suggested that the hon. Gentleman said so without reason, but let me assure him that my right hon. Friend and I and others who speak from this Bench are giving and have given the most serious consideration to these Amendments, and in the examination of this difficult and intricate question, I hope that Members upon all sides will approach the subject with the seriousness which it deserves. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side (Sir G. Hurst) suggested that we ought not to take a leap in the dark or at any rate, if we were going to take a leap in the dark, that we should preserve as many rays of light as possible. I have never invited this Committee to take a leap in the dark. I am anxious for as much elucidation of this Bill as possible, because the more the history of this Bill is understood, the more will hon. Members appreciate what is proposed in it. I am not saying that everybody in this Committee will be more likely to agree whole-heartedly with what is proposed. We all have our prejudices and our affections for ancient forms, even of the Constitution, but I say that the more light is thrown on the Bill, the more likely will the Committee be to come to the conclusion that in substance it is desirable that it should be passed into law at the earliest moment. That is the conclusion to which I believe hon. Members are coming, increasingly, in all parts of the Committee. Of course, that view does not preclude the anxious consideration of every Amendment before the Committee.
The Amendment proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side is, I understand, intended to provide that the area within which there may be a conflict of laws within the Dominions shall be restricted as much as possible. I am bound, however, to ask the Committee to observe that neither the first nor the third Amendment seems to be framed in such a way as to promote the objects which the promoters of those Amendments have in view. I am not going to base my reply upon a mere form of words. As my hon. Friend has
just said, it is always difficult to draft Amendments to give effect to one's meaning, and that is particularly so in this case, but I ask hon. Members to observe that the form of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is of a curious character. The first part of the Amendment is to provide that:
Such laws"—
that is laws which will have extraterritorial operation—
do not conflict in their terms with laws prevailing in the United Kingdom or in other Dominions which have extra-territorial operation.
That is to say, suppose that a Dominion passes a law which is to have extraterritorial operation, if it be found that that law conflicts with an existing law which also has extra-territorial operation, the law which was in existence first shall prevail and the law which came into existence subsequently shall be of no effect. That seems to amount to a declaration that whoever comes first is to hold possession of the field, because it is only the second law when it is inconsistent with the first law which is to become nugatory. I cannot think that that is a very convenient method or principle upon which to parcel out the legislative authority of the Empire—to provide that the Dominion which gets its word in first is to be the Dominion whose word is to prevail. But the last part of the Amendment provides that
such laws do not conflict … with international law,
There is not a lawyer, let alone a layman in this Committee who does not know that if there is anything vague in this uncertain world, it is the area and scope of international law. Everybody who has dabbled in that region of the law knows that of the many text books on the subject, scarcely one writer will agree with another upon the state of international law with regard to any subject at all. Take prize law alone, which is part of international law. Every country has its own prize law. I do not believe that any Amendment would be more likely to provoke that conflict and that discord which my hon. Friends are so anxious to avoid than a proposal that the laws passed by the Dominions shall always be judged on some imaginary standard which international law provides. I do not know who is to consider
discrepancies between the laws in question and international law, but I am bound to make those observations on the form of the Amendment.
My hon. Friends quite rightly say in regard to the Amendments: "This is the best that we have been able to do, and we put before you the suggestion that you shall in some way seek uniformity within the Commonwealth of Nations." I understood that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Moss Side expressed the opinion of those associated with him best, when he said that it was very unsatisfactory to have seven different systems of law prevailing in the Empire. [HON. Members: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to have my hon. and learned Friend's assent that that proposition is the one which best expresses his apprehensions. That view seems to me, and I say it with all respect, to proceed on a complete misconception as to the operation and the extra-territorial operation of laws. Suppose that two countries like Great Britain and France each pass legislation which is extra-territorial by reason of the sovereignty of the nations concerned. We have the power of legislating extra-territorially and so has France, but that does not mean that we may legislate so as to make municipal law in France as administered by the French courts in respect of persons who come within the jurisdiction of the French courts. It simply means that each nation has the capacity to legislate outside the three-miles limit of its own territory, in respect of its own subjects, in such a way as to make them amenable to the law, as administered in its own courts, when they come within its jurisdiction.
Does anybody suggest that because we have the power of extra-territorial legislation and France also has that power, that that fact has produced the inconvenience of two systems of law prevailing both in Great Britain and France? Of course, questions of conflicting laws arise in certain regions of law such as in connection with marriage —for instance, whether a person is a divorced person in one country by reason of the fact that he or she has been a divorced person in another country. Everybody knows that these
conflicts, as the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) has said, constitute a difficult branch of the law in themselves, but, broadly speaking, the capacity to legislate extra-territorially is a power to legislate for persons who come within the jurisdiction of the courts of the legislating nation.
5.0 p.m.
Let us apply that principle to the Empire. If this Clause is passed without the proposed Amendment, there will not be seven systems of law operating in all the Dominions. It is quite likely that there may be a different state of the law in each Dominion upon particular subjects, but those laws would only be administered as regards any particular Dominion in the courts of that Dominion with respect to persons who come within the jurisdiction of those courts. That seems to me not merely necessary, if you are to have the equality of status implicit in the Balfour Declaration, but it seems to me not inconvenient, because it is to be expected that a British law, a law of the Imperial Parliament, will not be suitable for people who dwell in different Dominions under radically different conditions. You would expect different systems of law to exist in each of the Dominions themselves.
An hon. Member may ask: What are you talking about when you are giving power to legislate extra-territorially? Let me give an illustration. As everybody knows, there are many Conventions regulating the way in which aeroplanes shall be used. They may not fly over certain territory; they may not fly under certain conditions. It is the subject of an international Convention or of many Conventions. Suppose that Canada wants to legislate so as to make it a crime for a Canadin citizen not to fly a Canadian aeroplane, in breach of that international Convention, the capacity of Canada to regulate the conduct of its own citizens stops strictly at the end of the three-miles limit outside Canadian territory. An effect of Clause 3 in its present form will be to allow Canada to legislate in such a way that if a Canadian citizen has offended against a Convention which has been recognised by the Canadian law, when he comes back to his own country he shall
be amenable to the Canadian courts administering Canadian law, even though the offence was committed extra-territorially, as we say, or outside the three miles' limit.
I do not think it is right to trouble the Committee with further illustrations of the same operation of extra-territorial law, but I want to deal quite shortly with one or two points that have been raised, in order to show that I think they proceed under a misapprehension. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has asked why there has been a departure from the form of the proposal to permit extra-territorial legislation only for the peace, order, and good government of the Dominion concerned. If the hon. Gentleman, who has complained that not enough ventilation has been given to this interesting subject, would refer to one book where the subject has been exhaustively ventilated, written by Professor Berriedale Keith, for the express purpose of dealing with the Report of the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation, he will find a volume of nearly 500 pages, dealing with this report. He points out that if this Clause had been passed with that addendum, referring to the peace, order, and good government of the Dominion concerned, it would have afforded abundant opportunities for the exercise of the lawyer s art, because it would be very difficult to discover whether or not a particular law was related to the peace, order, and good government of the Dominion. The omission of that qualifying sentence is a pure question of convenience.
One of my hon. and learned Friends asked what had happened to the recommendation in paragraph 44 of the Report on the Operation of Dominion Legislation as to providing fur the discipline of the armed forces of one Government when in the territory of another Government. The position as to that is that a Convention is now under discussion to enable that subject to be satisfactorily dealt with. It has been already agreed to by South Africa. It is in processs of finding agreement 'with the other Dominions, but obviously the Convention as to that matter must come after the passage of this Statute of Westminster, because this Statute will enable the different Dominions to give legislative effect to the Convention which is in process of being agreed, upon this limited subject. That,
I hope, will answer the question put by, I think, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson).
I hope that, while the Committee considers that this Clause has nothing at all in it which is likely to increase the possibility of a conflict of laws between the Dominions, it will see that neither the Amendment on the Paper nor any Amendment designed for the same purpose is necessary. Indeed, my own opinion is that if you are going to try to bring all the laws of the Empire, these widely differing territories, into the compass of some text-book, some volume of legislation, so as to see that no part conflicts with some other part, you will have a task which indeed will engage the attention of the Committee which, I think, the hon. Member for Eastbourne visualised as sitting for months and months and years and years. I cannot imagine a more fruitful subject of discord and discussion.
After all, we do belong to a nation which has Shown a little capacity to order the Government of its different parts; we do credit ourselves with some common sense, with a capacity on the part of even the layman of the Empire to understand the fundamental principles of English law; and I respectfully suggest to the Committee that rather than attempt here to regulate the legislation of all the Dominions, let us give them this power which they have sought and which we have promised them in the Imperial Conferences, and trust that they will, by subsequent co-operation with us, see that it is made a boon to the Empire instead of that Tower of Babel which my hon. and learned Friends appear to contemplate.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Before my hon. and learned Friend resumes his seat, could he deal with the third Amendment on the Paper, which does not go very much farther than, but really embodies, his peroration? All that we want is that the Convention already agreed upon should be ratified.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. Friend with great impartiality has put his name to both Amendments. My criticism of the second Amendment is that he will have to get this Convention establishing uniformity, whatever that may mean, before this Statute of Westminster
comes into operation. It is exactly the calling of a conference which is to carry out that rather difficult and, I think, impossible task which I should view with some apprehension. For those reasons, I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAM STEWART: It may be strange for one who is not a lawyer to talk about a subject which apparently exhausts the minds and brains of the distinguished lawyers who have spoken already, but I want to approach this matter from a common sense point of view. No one here wants to interfere with the Dominions doing exactly as they Like, but we do want to prevent our own right to do as we like being interfered with. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General refers to extra-territoriality law as only legislating for their own subjects. I would like to ask whether this Bill does not make us liable to be subject to two different Dominions. If that is so, are we not liable to be interfered with when we go to a Dominion which has a different law from the law in the Dominion to which we think we are subject?
I belong to Northern Ireland, and we have different opinions about religion and about politics, as compared with our friends in the Irish Free State. Those carry us a very long way. Take the question of divorce, which has been referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson). If I go to the Free State, as I very often do—I have considerable business there, and I like the Free State, and I like Dublin—it might be that if this Statute is passed, the Free State might call me an Irish Free State subject. [Interruption.] They might not want me, but they might make me that by law, which is quite a different matter. I would like the Solicitor-General to tell me, if that is possible, whether I would be liable to be interfered with in the Free State as a Free State subject under their law. That is all that we want to know. If this subject is as clear as the Solicitor-General makes out, why is there this division of opinion among hon. and learned Members in this House? I cannot understand why these hon. and learned Gentlemen cannot give us something that is quite clear.
The question of different laws in different Dominions is surely a very important and a very interesting question to discuss in a business manner. Almost every business man to-day has interests outside the United Kingdom. Re has interests in Canada, and, we will say, in Ireland, and when you come to a business matter it is possible that the law in one Dominion may be different from the law in another Dominion. If a conflict is to arise in regard to nationality, surely then a conflict arises right away as to the law to which you are subject. I would impress upon the Government that we do not want to interfere with the passing of this Bill at all, but that we want to try to avoid trouble. We have had enough trouble, and we want to avoid it. Why then can we not, when we have a, chance, if this matter is as easy as the Government tell us, make it quite clear and plain?

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: There is some confusion in the minds of some of us as to what these extra-territorial laws are. Suppose the Parliament of Canada passed a law requiring a Canadian miner to work nine hours a day, would that law enable a Canadian miner in a country where there was only an eight hours day to work the full nine hours a day? Again, you might have exactly the reverse of that situation, which would be equally difficult to decide. You might have a Canadian who was only permitted to work seven hours. Would he be compelled in another country, where eight hours were allowed, to work for only seven hours? As I understand, the law of the country where they were actually working would prevail, and not the law of the Dominion or country from which they came; but I would like to be quite clear on the point.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am happy to say that my hon. Friend has perfectly correctly understood the position. It is the law of the country in which the miner is working that would govern the conditions under which he might work. I hope that answers that point.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I put it in this way? Suppose that a miner worked an hour longer than he was permitted by the law in his own country, and then came back to his own country,
would he then be liable to be prosecuted? The Solicitor-General said that you have a law as far as flying is concerned in Canada, and that if it is broken the man responsible is liable when he comes back. Suppose he breaks these other laws, is he liable when he comes back?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. Friend puts a slightly different question from that which was included in the last two sentences of his speech. He is supposing the case of Canada saying that one of its citizens may not work more than five hours a day; so that it would be a crime in England, according to Canadian law, and the hon. Gentleman supposes that a man would be prosecuted in Canada for the crime he had committed by working in England more than five hours a day. All I can say is that that is a case which it does little credit to the Canadian Government or people to suggest is a possible one. [Interruption.] I hear an hon. Friend say that that is not an answer. The answer to the question is that strictly legally no doubt that might happen, but when my hon. Friends suggest that it is possible that a sensible legislature would pass an Act of that sort they are not doing full credit to the intelligence and good will of our fellow British subjects. Do let us understand that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) seemed to think that this Bill was a product of a hole-and-corner committee, there were on the two bodies that drafted it representatives of the most eminent lawyers in all parts of the Empire. Every single part of the Empire contributed its wealth of learning and good sense to the fabrication of this Measure.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: That is why it is so confusing.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is not a comment that I should like to make. My hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. W. Stewart) asked a question which was similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). He said that one Dominion might make a particular act a crime if committed by somebody who might come within the jurisdiction of the courts, shall I say, of the Irish Free State.

Mr. W. STEWART: Any state; I did not refer particularly to the Irish Free State.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Let me take any Dominion the hon. Member likes. I can only give the answer that has been given. It is possible to imagine many absurd situations. It is true that if any Dominion were to take that course —and I agree that it is theoretically possible to imagine it—the whole scheme would be likely to break down; but all I can say is that I do not believe any Dominion would legislate in that fashion. Let me also add that if they were minded to make crimes for which they would punish people when they came within their jurisdiction in the manner suggested, they could do it to-day and nobody could prevent them. If a Dominion cared to take a fantastic course, saying, "We will make it a crime for a member of another Dominion to do something in his own country, and we will punish him as soon as we can catch him when he lands on our shores," there is no power on earth to prevent that Dominion putting my hon. Friend in gaol.

Mr. STEWART: They can do that legally to-day?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It will not comfort my hon. Friend when he is in gaol to say, "You have done it illegally." The point is that the Amendment will not prevent people doing foolish things if they are minded to do them.

Mr. STEWART: That is no answer to my question. Can they do it legally today? That is my whole point.

Mr. AMERY: I want to make one or two observations on this Amendment, not from the point of view of a lawyer, but from that of an ordinary person who has watched the development of this matter to some extent from inside, and who has listened to the Debate. Judging from the course of the Debate, one would imagine that all extra-territorial legislation must be mischievous. As a matter of fact, that power is enjoyed in the ordinary way by every sovereign State. All the nations of Europe exercise it, and they exercise it apparently without creating any serious friction among each other. I do not think that anything has ever arisen in which Geneva has been interested or which has led to
acute controversy between different nations of the Continent because they have that power, nor has any controversy arisen between them and ourselves. More than that, the same power is enjoyed by one of the Dominions; the United Kingdom enjoys it towards both the foreign world and the rest of the Empire, and I do not believe that any serious trouble has arisen out of it. Is there any reason why these powers should not also be exercised by the other Dominions now that they have acquired their present status and now that their external interests are so much greater than they used to be?
In the original development of the Empire, the Dominions were largely remote from the world outside, and their external affairs were naturally conducted for them by the British Government. Now they are much more in the world than they were before. Over 4,000 miles Canada adjoins one of the greatest industrial countries in the world. Along that frontier there is a continual going and coming between Canadians and Americans. The United States enjoy certain extra-territorial rights over their citizens when they cross the Canadian border. Canada cannot make similar legislation at present, except by certain devious subterfuges, with regard to Canadian citizens crossing the American border. It is largely in their frontier relations with foreign countries that this question will arise. South Africa may want to make regulations with regard to her subjects crossing the Portuguese border. Is there any reason why, on an issue eminently to be decided by local considerations, as for instance, what happens to South African labourers when they go into Portuguese East Africa, that only should be susceptible to legislation by us here in this Parliament?
On the matter of uniformity, this is one of the cases where over a large part of the field uniformity is not desirable. The legislation that Canada passes with regard to bootleggers in America is not legislation that the South Africans would wish to pass with regard to absconding natives taking out diamonds or gold dust. Yet if this Amendment were accepted, then, if the terms of a law dealing with native runaways in South
Africa conflicted with the terms of a bootlegging ordinance in Canada, whichever was the later in the field would become invalid. This is a matter where over a very large part of the field it is essentially a matter for the local legislature and for differentiation, not for uniformity. There is a, very important part of the field, including such subjects as merchant shipping, where uniformity is desirable, but when that question is dealt with, you have to face the further question as to who is to enforce the uniformity. Are we in this Parliament to be the only Parliament in the Empire which has the right to legislate for all the other Dominions and to enforce uniformity upon them?
I can assure hon. Members who have spoken that every one of the points they have made was discussed fully in 1926. It was then decided that, in view of the principles which govern the relations of the Empire, uniformity has to be sought by other means than the arbitrary imposition of it by one Parliament. This conclusion was confirmed after months of discussion between experts, who were the best legal minds from every part of the Empire. These results were published in this country; we all knew about them. The actual terms of this particular Bill are mostly in italics in the report of the Conference of 1929. They were again fully and anxiously considered in 1930, and, as a result of that consideration and of a definite undertaking given to the Imperial Conference, they are now presented to this House. I agree that it would be unfortunate if on some of these matters, like merchant shipping, there was a gap during which inconsistent legislation were introduced. We have been informed, as regards this instance, that the Governments of the Empire have agreed upon a convention securing uniformity, and that they intend to put it into force as soon as the Statute of Westminster goes through. Are we to say that, though they have given this assurance, there may be a few weeks during which they may run amok and pass all sorts of diverse legislation and destroy that uniformity? I admit that it is undesirable that the old uniformity should disappear before the new uniformity is secured, but you will not do that by saying, "We will not take away
our arbitrary powers of control until you have made a new uniformity that suits us." You cannot bargain in that way. You have to accept the position that uniformity by dictation is no longer possible, but you will find very little difficulty in arriving at uniformity by agreement in those matters in which uniformity is desirable.
This discussion has seemed to proceed on a basis which, I should have thought on reflection, we could not sustain, even in this proud and ancient House of Commons, that is, that all wisdom is with us alone, that we alone have a sense of Imperial responsibility, and that if we give to other parts of the Empire the same licence and power they are bound to abuse them. We must accept the position that they, like ourselves, are reasonable in their outlook and are not mischievous children who have been prematurely sent out into the world, but that they are Imperial nations which have risen gradually to a position and a sense of Imperial responsibility like ourselves. Is it beyond hope that in matters that are eminently local they will legislate sanely for their own purposes, and that in matters where common uniformity is desirable they will approach that problem of uniformity in the same spirit of good will and with the same desire to serve the common weal that we possess?

5.30 p.m.

Sir JOHN WITHERS: I regret the attitude of mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery). This is one of the most important matters that has come before Parliament for many years, and it is destined to regulate the British Empire for centuries. It is the duty of every Member to put before the Committee his views, if he thinks he ought to do so. Although I did not put my name to this Amendment, I thoroughly appreciate the reasons of the hon. Members who have done so. The Solicitor-General says there may be absurd anomalies created in theory but that in practice they will not occur; but here we are making a Statute which is to last for years, and surely it is our duty, if we can, to remove such anomalies. We may be told that there is no time to do it, and that may be so, owing to this Statute of Westminster having been brought be-
fore the House at a time of unexampled trouble and anxiety, and after a General Election in which the matter was never mentioned. Personally, I feel that it is very wrong of right hon. Gentlemen, however learned they may be, to impute motives and reasons to hon. Members who are trying to do their duty.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should not have intervened again but for the spirit of the reply of the Solicitor-General. I asked only a simple question, refraining from making a speech because I did not want to hold up business. The question was on a purely technical point, a legal point, and it was put with no desire to try to make out, as the Solicitor-General inferred, that we should get absurd legislation in the Dominions. I repudiate the idea that any Member on the Treasury Bench can ride off in that way from a question which is too difficult. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not intend that, hut, after all, he said it, and that being so the least I can do is to get up and tell him that I have no intention of casting any reflection on Dominion legislation. May I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, also, that perhaps the Dominions have better lawyers than we have here. At any rate we have passed innumerable silly and stupid laws, such as the legislation dealing with the sale of sweets, and the like. I will not take up the time of the Committee any longer, except to express the hope that the ordinary private Member who puts a question will not be treated as though he wished to cast reflections on the Dominions, although I am sure that was not intended.

Amendment negatived.

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall deprive any subject in any Dominion of British nationality.
I had not intended to introduce this Amendment myself, but in the absence of my hon. Friends whose names are also attached to it, I ask the House to listen while I submit some reasons why this proviso should be inserted. It will be agreed on all hands that no one should, by inadvertence, be deprived of the status of British nationality through the operations of this Measure. British
nationality is one of the bonds of the Empire, or, as this Statute proposes to call it, "The British Commonwealth." Something was said on this matter at the Conference which apparently has escaped the attention of those who drafted this Bill. No definite proposals were made dealing with the question of nationality, but the report of the Conference on the operation of Dominion legislation said:
It is important to maintain the common status, though there may be reasons for variation in some cases.
In the final conclusion it is said:
The possession of a common status… in any part of the Commonwealth ought to carry with it the recognition of that status by the law of every other part of the Commonwealth.
What else can that mean except British nationality? Clearly there has been some oversight in the drafting of the Bill, because if it passes in its present form that most important question will be left unprovided for, and there is ground for confusion and misunderstanding. We all value our British nationality, and it is especially valuable to those who are in the more distant parts of the world. If any subject born in a Dominion, whether it be New Zealand or whether it he the new Dominion of the Irish Free State, were to be deprived of British nationality, then the Government of every other Dominion would be precluded from taking action if that person were aggrieved by the subjects or the Government of any other Power. This bond of nationality is one of the most important of those which keeps the Empire together. We should provide against action which may arise either through inadvertence or by the deliberate intent of persons elsewhere. I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me as a. layman that it is only clear common sense that the omission to which attention has been drawn should be repaired by the proviso which I now move.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): If there were any prospect of the fears of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman being realised I should take my stand with him in refusing to agree to any Act of Parliament which might deprive me of my nationality. I hasten to assure him straight away, on the autho-
rity of all the best legal advice, that that is the real answer to his suggestion. I would also point out that our fellow subjects in the Dominions of Australia, Canada and South Africa are very jealous of their British nationality, and I am sure it will occur to him that their representatives, who were responsible for these words, would feel equally jealous. Obviously, he was not aware that the Law Officers of Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and the Irish Free State, who are as jealous on this point as any Member of this House, were themselves unanimously responsible for the drafting of this Clause. The only answer I can give to my right hon. Friend is that, as we are at present advised by all the competent legal authorities in the British Commonwealth, as well as our Law. Officers of the Crown, there is nothing whatever in this Clause as it stands that would deprive anyone of his British nationality.

Mr. MARJARIBANKS: May I say with very great respect that I, at any rate, propose to express a different view of the law from that which has been set forth by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs? The right hon. Gentleman said that all competent legal opinion was on the side of the Government, but he knows perfectly well that all competent legal opinion is not on his side.

Mr. THOMAS: I did not say anything of the kind. I made the specific statement that the Law Officers of all the Dominions were parties to this, and I assume that they would be as jealous about this particular point as we are. That is the point I made.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I am very sorry if I misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman, because I should hate to do that, but there is eminent legal opinion which is not on his side. If the point is argued, I think it will be seen that there is a danger to British nationality. Up to the passing of this Measure everybody in the British Empire, excepting Great Britain, has been entitled to two kinds of nationality. Everybody born in His Majesty's British Dominions and Colonies was entitled to Imperial nationality. In 1914 that was put into statute form by the British Nationality Act of that year. In that Act it was provided
that the following persons should be deemed to be natural-born British subjects:
Any person horn within His Majesty's Dominions and allegiance.
That is a matter of statute law, and by this Bill we shall enable any Dominion to repeal that statute law. Therefore, as a mere matter of repeal, that right may go. It is as clear as day that the British Nationality Act, so far as it applies to the Dominions, may be repealed by them. That, of course, is the very subject matter of this Bill—that such an Act may be repealed. When the right hon. Gentleman said that every Law Officer in the Dominions was satisfied that this Bill would not affect Imperial nationality he ought to have considered the provisions of the Act of 1914 which, like every other Imperial Act, will be subject to repeal. Apart from Imperial citizenship, which, as I said the other day, was the proudest boast which anybody of any race or any colour could make since the days of the Roman Empire, each Dominion of the Empire can give to its citizens Dominion nationality, a local nationality, but it is that, and that only, which will survive as the result of this Bill, so far as I can see. If this Amendment be not inserted it may he that this Bill will abolish Imperial citizenship altogether, and that no safeguard will survive. At any rate, it will make it possible for another Act to be passed which will deprive the citizens of a Dominion of their Imperial nationality.
An hon. Member sitting above the Gangway mentioned the case of Ireland. Suppose it should occur to the Government of the Free State to repeal the British Nationality Act and to abrogate the right of its citizens to Imperial British citizenship. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered what would happen then? He could not even help the Irish loyalists by diplomatic representations, because ipso facto they would cease to be subjects of the British Crown. All these questions are not easy to answer, and they cannot he dismissed by quoting authorities which are not given or by producing the opinion of Law Officers. These are matters which must be considered on their merits.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The Amendment reads:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall deprive any subject in any Dominion of British nationality.
I answer the hon. Member by saying that there is nothing in this. Act which does what is complained of.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to take a broader view. The whole weight and depth of the opposition is in regard to what will happen on 1st December, and we believe that innumerable results will follow throughout the Empire as a result of this provision. It is a mere legal quibble to say that there is nothing in this Act which would not be affected by a repeal of the British Nationality Act of 1914 by any of the Dominions. That argument is quite unworthy of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. I want an answer, "aye" or "no," from the right hon. Gentleman to my question as to whether it is possible for the Irish Free State to repeal the Nationality Act of 1914, and if he says it is possible to do that let me remind him that that would take away the whole protection of the British Foreign Office to the tiny minority in the Irish Free State to whom we owe many obligations.
Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise how terrible it will be for people in Ireland suddenly to find themselves in a hostile atmosphere, separated from the Crown which they served so faithfully for so many years in the past? The right hon. Gentleman says that there is nothing in this Bill to deprive, those people of British nationality, but of course he cannot answer for every Act that may follow this Bill. This Measure is so crowded with possibilities in regard to other Acts that we are obliged to oppose it, and this is not a question that you can get rid of in one day. The Measure which we are now considering is one which may vitally affect the unity of the British Empire.

Mr. THOMAS: In reply to what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) has just said, I would like to remind him that all that I did was to call his attention to the words of the Amendment. I respectfully submit that I was dealing with the Amendment before
the House. The wording is not the wording of the Government, but the wording of the Amendment, which says:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall deprive any subject in any Dominion of British nationality.
If that is the Amendment, all I say is that there is nothing in this Bill that will do what is suggested in the Amendment. I was not called upon to say what will happen in the future, but I was dealing with the Amendment before the House.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 4.—(Parliament of United Kingdom not to legislate for Dominion except by consent.)

Sir J. WITHERS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, after the second word "that," to insert the words "the Parliament of."
If my Amendment is accepted the Clause will read:
No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that the Parliament of that Dominion has requested and consented to the enactment thereof.
This Amendment, to a certain extent, is a drafting Amendment. The Parliament of each Dominion is always referred to as the authority for testing the opinion of that particular Dominion, and, therefore, to make the Clause read properly, the words I have suggested ought to be inserted.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: If I had only to consult my own personal wishes I should be quite willing to accept this Amendment, but the Clause was drafted in its present form at the request of the Dominions themselves. The Government were indifferent on this point, but the real answer is that as far as the Government was concerned we did not care which method was adopted, but what is now proposed was put in at the request of the Dominions.

Amendment negatived.

Sir G. HURST: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that nothing in this Section shall prevent the Parliament of the United Kingdom from amending or supplementing any Bill so requested by the Parliament of a Dominion or the Parliament of a Dominion from assenting to such Bill as amended or supplemented by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
This Amendment does not raise any question of principle, and it is simply a drafting proposal. We think a contingency might arise where a request might be made by a Dominion that an Act not of the kind contemplated in Clause 4 might be passed by the Parliament of a Dominion, and when that Measure reached this House it might be found that, in some obscure way, it did not carry out the intention of the Dominion Government, and it might be thought necessary to pass an Amendment, not of substance, but dealing with the drafting, with a view to giving effect to the real object of the Dominion which had made the request. If after being amended it was assented to by the Dominion, it might be a contentious question whether the Act passed in that way was the actual Act requested by the Dominion Government. I have put down this Amendment in order to ascertain what is the position of a Bill that has been amended in that way. It might be useful to give a certain limited power to our Parliament to deal with a question of this kind, as it may well be that the Dominions would not like the passing of such legislation to be delayed.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to second the Amendment.
Great importance attaches to the principle contained in this Amendment, which is only an alternative form of another Amendment which appears later on the Paper. It is a drafting Amendment, but it is one which may have an immense influence on the continuance of Imperial unity, and the future of this House. This Amendment has been debated in, the Dominions, and more especially in the Australian Parliament. The Dominions must make a request for an Act before it comes to this House, but when it comes here it has to be accepted in exactly the same form as it has been requested. I do not know whether hon. Members fully realise the effect of that proposal because, in reality, it is taking away an enormous power from the British House of Commons, and transferring it to His
Majesty's Government. In most legislation the House of Commons has the ultimate control, but in this case the control is handed over to the Government, and only the Government can initiate such a Bill. The request must come from the Dominions, and then their Measures can be discussed here, but these Measures can only be decided aye or no, and no Amendment can be made.
6.0 p.m.
For these reasons, I think that what is now proposed is a most proper Amendment, and it is not opposed in any way to the principle of this Statute. I think this Measure may be made a good one if machinery is introduced in it which will allow the Parliaments of the Empire to consult each other. We do not wish to deprive the Imperial Parliament of the power to discuss these matters. If this Amendment is not accepted, there will be no equality between this Parliament and the Dominion Parliaments, because the Dominion Parliaments will be able to discuss the legislation they wish to send to this House and this House will not be able either to discuss or amend that legislation. There is an important principle involved in this Amendment, and, unless it is accepted, we shall be doing away with the power of the Imperial Parliament to discuss and alter Dominion legislation. It seems to me that what I have stated is the real effect of the words contained in this Bill, and unless the Clause is amended in some such way as I have suggested, the powers of the Imperial Parliament to deal with these matters will be greatly restricted. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have taken advice on this matter, and have asked an opinion much more valuable than my own; and I think that the House of Commons ought not to pass the Bill without a provision of this kind, without fully realising the possibility that it may emasculate itself as an Imperial Parliament.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: My hon. Friend has carried this question on to a much wider basis than the Mover of the Amendment had in mind. I must say again that it is not fair to new Members of the House, who may be listening to these Debates, to assume that the Government will be constantly throwing at them Bills of a complicated character
without any opportunity for consideration. The hon. Member has repeated that assumption, and now states that he has certain information as to the apprehensions of some Dominions on this matter. Let me assure him, and let me assure the Committee, that the Dominions have never hesitated to express their opinions in very definite language, and, if there were any feeling in any of the Dominions with regard to any part of this Bill, surely the first person to hear about it would be the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. Our object in this matter is to assist the Dominions. We are doing this at their request; this is their Bill; and, surely, it is useless for the hon. Member to repeat, to Members who would not know the real facts, that some strong feeling exists in the Dominions. Let me assure him that the strong feeling is in favour of the Bill, as expressed by all their Resolutions at the Imperial Conference.
Look at the confusion that arises over this simple issue. The Mover of the Amendment, clearly, knew exactly what question he was asking, namely, Is there a danger of our being deprived of the power to give to any legislation for the Dominions that close scrutiny which can be given at the present time? That is a much narrower point than has been stated by the hon. Member for East-bourne (Mr. Marjoribanks). What is the Dominion legislation that we are called upon to deal with? I myself have introduced such legislation, but it was only done at the request of the Dominion of Canada, and was covered by the British North America Act. If the Dominion Parliament made such a request in the usual way, by petition to His Majesty and so on, would the House of Commons say that they should be the best judges with regard, for instance, to the interpretation of the British North America Act? Should we ever be called upon to-day to pass any legislation that attempted to interfere in any way with the status of any of our Dominions? Canada especially is protected by the British North America Act, and preserves the right to go through the usual formality of petitioning the King, and, through His Majesty, requesting the House of Commons to pass certain legislation. I think that on the last occasion on which that was done it was to confer certain rights on Manitoba. I
remember introducing the Bill in five minutes, and the whole House readily agreed to it. Why should any Member of this House desire to tell Canada what was good for one of her own Provinces? That is a power which the Dominions exercise to-day, and will continue to exercise. The real answer to the Amendment is that the procedure which exists to-day will be preserved under this Bill, and that is why we are unable to accept the Amendment.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to have misunderstood me to a certain extent. If the right view is that this does not deprive the Imperial Parliament of the power to discuss Imperial Bills, I am perfectly satisfied, but I wish to make that clear by putting in au express provision to safeguard it. If it only expresses what the right hon. Gentleman wishes, then, for my own part, I do not see why it should not be included in the Bill. When I said that there were misgivings in the Australian Parliament on this very matter, I was only stating what is true, because my arguments are taken directly from a speech by Mr. Latham in the Australian Parliament. I will not weary the House by reading it, but the arguments were the same with regard to such legislation being introduced at the request of the Dominion concerned.

Mr. THOMAS: I must again correct the hon. Member. I do so because so much interest has been taken in this matter—and it is a good thing that in a new House of Commons there should be such an interest in Imperial matters —and I must not allow the hon. Member or anyone else to be confused. Suppose that a Bill were being discussed in Australia or Canada at this moment, involving Imperial questions affecting this country, and suppose that a speaker got up in support of it and said, "But I want this House to remember what Great Britain thinks of it." The implication would be that he was speaking of the British Government, but he might be quoting the Leader of the Opposition and his audience might not know it. See what an unfortunate situation that would create. So far as the Governments and the Imperial Conference are concerned, they are not, and cannot be, concerned with mere party politics. The last Im-
perial Conference, and, indeed, every Imperial Conference, comprised representatives of Governments whose political opinions varied—sometimes a Labour Government in Australia, a Liberal Government in Canada, and so on; but, so far as the Governments themselves are concerned, and so far as we are concerned, the only authoritative view that we can legitimately take is that expressed by the Government of the day, whoever they are. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the fact that, so far as we are concerned, the expressions of opinion have come all the time from the Government of the day, and that that, after all, is the only authoritative opinion.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I quite accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and am sorry that I should have confused him.

Mr. ATKINSON: I should like to be quite clear on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that if, say, the Dominion of Canada asked us to make particular alterations in one of the Acts referred to in Clause 7 of this Bill, that is to say, the British North America Acts, this House has got to pass that Bill in the precise form in which they request us to pass it, and that we have no power to alter a single word in the Bill which they request us to pass.

Mr. THOMAS: I do not put it so high as that. The British North America Acts give certain rights, which the Canadian people are very jealous of preserving, but the overriding part is that it rests with this Parliament, at the request of Canada, to give expression, in the way that they desire, to their petition, as was done, for instance, on the last occasion, when, as I have said, some rights to Manitoba were involved. There is a petition to His Majesty, and then a request to the House of Commons. It would not be true to say that every word of such a Bill would not be subject to scrutiny here, because we could scrutinise it, but it would be true to say that there is nothing on record to show that, in the event of a petition under the British North America Act, the principle of that petition would be interfered with by this Parliament. It would be wrong to do so. It would be saying that we ourselves are going to exercise the right to tell Canada what
exactly she thinks she wants. I hope that my hon. Friend will not confuse the issue by continuing to say that it would not be possible to alter a word. I do not say that, but I do say that it would be inconsistent and inconceivable that this Parliament should alter the principle for which the Dominion had asked.

Sir G. HURST: I am quite satisfied, and I think my friends are, with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 5.—(Powers of Dominion Parliaments in relation to merchant shipping.)

Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, at the end, to add the words:
Provided that this Section shall not come into operation until a convention as to merchant shipping in the British Empire has been ratified by the Parliaments of the United Kingdom and of each Dominion.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) has to-day altered his argument in favour of the Bill. As I understand it, the basis of his argument is that this Bill provides, in substitution for the old uniformity which bound the Empire together, a new form of uniformity based upon the consent of all the Dominions and all the parts of the Empire. If, however, it is to be based on such consent, the new uniformity should be brought into force. It is well realised upon what the present uniformity is based. The effect of my Amendment would be as follows. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that:
Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Act, Sections seven hundred and thirty-five and seven hundred and thirty-six of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, shall be construed as though reference therein to the Legislature of a British possession did not include reference to the Parliament of a Dominion.
Sections 735 and 736 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, restrict the power of British possessions to do certain things. At the moment, uniformity with regard to merchant shipping is obtained by this Parliament legislating for the whole Empire, subject to certain reservations, which are safeguarded in Sections 735
and 736, to the Legislatures of British possessions. British possessions can now do certain things. For instance, Section 35 says:
The Legislature of any British possession may by any Act or Ordinance, confirmed by Her Majesty in Conned, repeal, wholly or in part, any provision of this Act (other than those of the Third Part thereof which relate to emigrant ships), relating to ships registered in that possession; but any such Act or Ordinance shall not take effect until the approval of Her Majesty has been proclaimed in the possession…
Therefore, there is the check of an Order in Council and the approval of Her Majesty upon any Legislature repealing any Section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. Section 736 of the Act provides that:
The Legislature of a British possession may, by any Act or Ordinance, regulate the coasting trade of that British possession, subject in every case to the following conditions.
The Section then states the conditions under which the Legislature of a British possession can modify the Act of 1894. Clause 5 of this Bill would remove all these safeguards. By removing the word "Dominion" from the definition of a British possession, it would enable a Dominion as defined in this Statute of Westminster Bill to legislate irrespective of legislation in this House, and without the check given by the Royal Proclamation in the case of British possessions under the Act of 1894. So that, as far as the Dominions are concerned, after the passing of the Statute of Westminster, there would be probably no uniformity with regard to the merchant shipping services. The desirability of that uniformity has been set out in the report of the Conference of 1929. One of its recommendations was:
As shipping is a world-wide interest in which uniformity, from the nature of the case, is desirable, there is a strong presumption in favour of concerted action between members of the British Commonwealth in shipping matters.
That uniformity is now secured under the Act of 1894 by the Royal Proclamation. Assuming it to be desirable that one system of uniformity should be substituted for another—I do not think this Bill does it, but that is beside the point for the moment—the first thing you have to do is to have the form of uniformity to substitute for the existing one. That form is suggested by the Amendment. It
will avoid all the clash of legislation which you may easily get with the position created under the Clause.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: I understand that this agreement has been drafted and sent out to the various Dominions and has been virtually approved by them. Knowing, as I do, something about shipping, and having handled a good many vessels in foreign ports, I think it would be a most disastrous thing if this Clause was passed without having an agreement between various portions of the Empire as to what is to be done in the case of vessels that are registered outside Great Britain. I cannot see why, when a draft agreement of such importance as this was being sent out to govern our dealing with shipping in the years to come, it was not first of all submitted to Parliament. It was drawn up here and sent out to the Dominions and the Colonies and, if they agree to it and it comes back here, we shall be told we cannot possibly alter it but that we have to agree to it. I hope that the Committee will approve of the Amendment.

Mr. ATKINSON: One of the Sections of the Merchant Shipping Act referred to in this Clause provides that all British ships shall receive the same treatment as ships of other possessions. It does not seem unreasonable that we should do something to retain that right until it has been secured by a Convention. To pass an Act depriving us of the right of equal treatment before we have secured the Convention does not seem a very reasonable thing, and I suggest that the Amendment is so reasonable that it ought to be accepted.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) has presented an involved legal argument, and I think it is his desire that uniformity should be maintained in merchant shipping legislation throughout the British Empire. That is precisely the intention of the Clause. If he had followed the proceedings of the Conference on the Operation of Dominion Legislation which took place in 1929 he would appreciate that at present the law is in confusion. We have not legislated for the Dominions since 1906, and, therefore, such uniformity as he desires
cannot be secured except by agreement. The heads of such agreement have been drawn up and have been published and been on record for a very considerable time. My hon. Friend quoted from the proceedings of the Conference of 1929. In the proceedings of the Conference of 1930 he will find the agreement set out in full. All the Dominions have agreed to this Convention as he prefers to calf it. There is no difference of opinion whatever except in the case of New Zealand, and it is hoped that such small difference of opinion as exists between that Dominion and the rest will be rapidly adjusted. In these circumstances, I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that this is the best way to secure uniformity, for it is uniformity by agreement and it removes the present anomalies, not only of status but also the present anomalies in connection with discrepant legislation which may now be passed in relation to identical subject matter in the Dominions on the one hand and in this country on the other. Having given my hon. Friend that assurance, coupled with this further assurance, that shipping interests are entirely in favour of this agreement, I hope he will not press the Amendment.

Mr. MORRIS: Since my hon. Friend admits the desire for uniformity, and he has the uniformity now in the draft agreement, there can he no difficulty about putting this proviso into the Clause, because it gives statutory embodiment to what is already obtained. With this proviso in the Bill, it will not be necessary on future occasions to obtain the agreement which he has now been fortunate enough to obtain.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Either you are prepared to trust the Dominions now and in the future and to believe them when they say they will put this agreement into operation or you are going to try and maintain an antiquated—

Mr. MORRIS: My hon. Friend does not appreciate the point. We are not going to ask that this shall be given legislative effect unless there is agreement. On this occasion he has been fortunate enough to secure agreement and, therefore, no difficulty arises. Where there is no agreement there shall be no effective legislation in the future. That
is all we are asking. We want to secure that there shall be agreement in the future before there is legislation.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: This Clause only secures in the letter what has long been the position in spirit. There is no sanction which my hon. Friend will be able to apply now or in the future to carry out the present theory of our superiority in matters of legislation and, if the Dominions are willing to sign, why should my hon. Friend hold a big stick over them?

Mr. MORRIS: My hon. Friend is misrepresenting what I said. This proviso seeks to obtain agreement first. He may say that the proclamation under the Act of 1903 was holding a big stick. All that this secures is that there shall be a Convention to ratify, provided there is agreement. There is no big stick about that.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend is also under a misapprehension. There is complete agreement.

Mr. MORRIS: This time.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, and the agreement will be signed within a very few days. It is not necessary for Parliaments to ratify as suggested in the Amendment but, in so far as Parliaments can, this Parliament is ratifying now. The Dominions will sign, and are authorised by their Governments to sign within the course of the next few days, and that is the only occasion to which his Amendment relates. I really think it is a very small difference. We do not want to hold up an Act of Parliament by accepting an Amendment of this kind when there is no difference of opinion whatever between us and the Dominion.

Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: What happens if these draft agreements are not signed? I think that is a substantial point, and the only point, on which we require some security.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is only a question of the spirit in which you are going to treat the Dominions. One cannot say more than that. The Dominions have agreed to sign, there is no reason to doubt their word in the matter, and I do not see any necessity to accept an Amendment which in itself would be an
aspersion upon the Dominions. We never hesitated for a moment to believe that they will append their signatures where they promised to append them. They are desirous of so doing.

Mr. BALFOUR: I cannot agree that there is any aspersion on the Dominions on the matter. The fact is that at present it rests upon a draft agreement, and the sole point under discussion is to have words added that until the agreement is signed, the present position shall continue. I think we are entitled to have some such assurance.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Dominions at present enjoy, or suffer under, an inferiority of status. Surely my hon. Friend, who is such an Imperialist, will not wish to continue that inferiority of status any longer. There is no sanction by which we can preserve our present position. As the Dominions have consented to sign, and as there will be complete equality for British shipping throughout the Empire as the result of passing this Clause, I cannot appreciate the very narrow point, if he will allow me courteously to say so, raised by my hon. Friend.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 6 (Powers of Dominion Parliaments in relation to Courts of Admiralty), 7 (Saving for British North America Acts and application of the Act to Canada), 8 (Saving for Constitution Acts of Australia and New Zealand) and 9 (Saving with respect to States of Australia), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Certain sections of Acts not to apply to Australia, New Zealand, or Newfoundland unless adopted.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjorihanks) wish to move their Amendments in a somewhat different form, namely, in line 36, to leave out from the word "effect" to the end of the line. If that is their desire, I ask the hon. Member for East-bourne to move in that form.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 36, to leave out the words "either from the commencement of this Act or."
6.30 p.m.
I merely wish to know whether the Government can accept the Amendment or not, and to point out the difficulty we may be in in future if they do not accept such an Amendment. Under the wording of Clause 10 it is possible that a Dominion may adopt the Act on 1st December, or at any time afterwards, and that, under the present wording of the Measure, when it has adopted the Act, the day of its effective adoption may go back any amount of time. So that if in 10 years a Dominion Parliament adopts the Act or any provision of it, it may have a retrospective effect of five or six years under the wording of the Clause. That is a very grave defect, and any hon. Member who reads the Clause will understand that it is possible under the drafting of the Clause for a decision with regard to Imperial matters in the Dominion courts and in the courts at home to be upset by an Act with a retrospective effect. I am sure that this does not do justice to the Solicitor-General in its present form, unless there is some special reason of policy for retaining the words. I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Clause should read:
and any Act of that Parliament adopting any Section of this Act…shall have effect from such later date as is specified in the adopting Act.
If that can be of any assistance to my hon. and learned Friend I should be very glad to make him a present of the suggestion.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Amendment on the Paper proposes to do the exact opposite of what my hon. Friend now proposes.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: I must explain that it is entirely my mistake.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We are all liable to make mistakes, and I anticipated that my hon. Friend intended his Amendment to be what he now proposes to make it, so that I have not been taken wholly unawares. The objection is—and I am free to admit that at first sight there is some reasonableness in it—as I think he said on Second Reading, to empowering a Dominion to adopt the Act, say in
five or six years time, and then do what lawyers are fond of doing, deem that the Act had been in operation the whole of the time previous to its adoption. The fact is that this provision was devised to meet the wishes and the views of the Dominion of New Zealand. If hon. Members will refer to page 21 of the Imperial Conference report, they will find that a Clause dealing with the position of New Zealand is there set out embodying this alternative power as to adoption. All that the Bill does is to apply that provision to two other Dominions instead of singling out New Zealand, at New Zealand's request. I do not think that my hon. Friend attaches any great importance to it, and I hope that inasmuch as the Clause is to meet the wishes of the Dominions concerned, it will be thought convenient that these words shall stand in the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I call upon the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris), I should like to ask the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. L. Boyce) whether he wishes to move his Amendment, and, if so, I shall preserve it.

Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: Yes, Sir.

Mr. H. MORRIS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 39, to leave out Sub-section (2).
The words I wish to leave out are:
The Parliament of any such Dominion as aforesaid may at any time revoke the adoption of any Section of this Act.
This Sub-section seems to illustrate the principle of the hill with regard to Australia, New Zealand, and Newfoundland, that is to say:
None of the following Sections of this Act, that is to say, Sections two, three, four, five and six, shall extend to a Dominion to which this Section applies as part of the law of that Dominion unless that Section is adopted by the Parliament of the Dominion.
They may adopt it at any time. They may adopt one Section, and, having adopted it, they can adopt another Section at another date, and a third Section at another date. They can adopt the Act piecemeal, and they can proceed to revoke it Section by Section. I understand from the argument of the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) that this provides a new constitution for the Dominions. I agree. The only thing I regret is that it is being embodied in what I regard as a piece of very bad legislation. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Here are the Dominions; they are demanding this Bill." He was careful to say that the Governments of the Dominions were demanding the Bill when correcting an hon. Member opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Parliaments!"] Yes, in very lukewarm resolutions.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Let us be clear upon this matter. Do I gather that my hon. Friend objects to any Parliament, whether it is here or in the Dominions, speaking for and representing the Dominions?

Mr. MORRIS: I certainly do not, but I do not always regard even the Government in this country as representing the nation. General elections have proved that. They prove it both ways. I would say exactly the same thing with regard to the Dominions. They do not represent the Dominions any more than is the case here. Here are three Dominions mentioned. None of those Clauses is going to apply to them unless they adopt them piecemeal. Once they have adopted the Act they can revoke it. I cannot conceive an instance of a worse form of legislation than this, and for that reason I propose that the Sub-section be deleted.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The history of this Clause is precisely the same as that of the last. The Clause in this form was drawn up at the instance of the Dominion Government of New Zealand, and it was subsequently asked that the same Clause should be applied to the Commonwealth of Australia, and to New Zealand. Therefore the Clause is, by the operation of the words at the top of the next page, confined to those three Dominions. My hon. Friend expressed the opinion that it is very bad legislation. He is fully entitled to his own opinion, but I am bound to say that it is not the view taken by the responsible Dominions which asked for legislation in this form. My hon. Friend therefore is in the unfortunate position of not agreeing with the Governments of the three Dominions, and I am afraid
that I must leave it there. I hope that now he is assured that the Dominions in question really want it in this form he will not press the Amendment.

Mr. MORRIS: The Dominions can revoke the whole thing.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. BOYCE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 41, to leave out the words "of this Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "referred to in sub-section (1) of this section."
My object in moving this Amendment is to secure, beyond all possibility of doubt, that the sovereign rights of the six States of Australia shall not in any way be affected by the passing of this Bill. On the face of it, Sub-section (2) of Clause 10 appears to suggest that any Sections of the Act may be revoked by the Parliament of a Dominion including Sections 8 and 9 which are vital to the preservation of those rights. Although I read Sub-section (2) as meaning that only those Sections, namely Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6—which require to be adopted by a Dominion before they can become operative—may be revoked, yet considerable doubts have arisen as to whether this interpretation could not be challenged. The purpose of the Amendment is completely and finally to remove those doubts. If the Government can see their way to accept the Amendment, I can assure my hon. and learned Friend it will be appreciated by the Governments of the States concerned.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. Friend, I think, takes the view of the construction of the Sub-section as drafted which I take, namely, that as it speaks of revoking the adoption of any Section of the Act, it must be limited to the revocation of Sections which can be adopted. But as he says, there is a possibility at first sight of misunderstanding Sub-section (2), and my right hon. Friend has considered the Amendment and is prepared to accept it as an improvement in drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11 (Meaning of "Cotony" in future Acts) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Short title and commencement.)

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, to leave out the word "thirty-one," and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-two."
The object of the Amendment, which stands in my name and the names of several hon. Friends, is to attempt to provide, upon the coming into operation of this Measure, a kinder reception than it may have on the 1st of next month. If we look round the Empire we find that Australia is half-hearted about it, Tasmania and West Australia have protested, New Zealand does not seem to want it, Canada is lukewarm, but certain persons in South Africa and in Ireland want it for electoral purposes. We come back to this country and find that the Solicitor-General is more apologetic than enthusiastic. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) is fatalistic. A Measure of this importance which affects the whole Empire, and affects it for generations, should be received and adopted with enthusiasm. With regard to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, perhaps I can best illustrate what I believe to be his attitude to the Measure by a humorous remark which I heard him make though not in this Debate. He said, "I wonder when this poor old country will get Dominion status." That illustrates his attitude. As for this House it takes the view that the step is inevitable and accepts it with resignation. That attitude seems to be the result of what has happened in the last 34 years. Thirty-four years ago Canada gave this country a measure of Imperial Preference, generously, and since then the Dominions have been anxiously wishing for a wide extension of that principle, but the response of this country has been meagre. Consequently, there has been discouragement on the part of the Dominions. By this Bill we are trying to imprison the spirit of unity which should exist without this legal phraseology. We are told that we are at the beginning of a new era. The Secretary of State for the Dominions is about to start upon an errand of Imperial economic unity. The omens are favourable and I believe that he will get a warm welcome.
I hope that it will start a new epoch in the history of the Empire, but I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that instead of his passion for getting this Bill passed, verbatim, it would be well to accept my Amendment. The Bill would then come into operation under new auspices, with a new feeling in the Empire—a feeling of hope and progress. I would respectfully urge the Government to accept the Amendment.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I can only conceive that my hon. Friend moved the Amendment with a view to getting one grouse off his chest, and one hope expressed. He wishes to defer the Bill for 12 months, first of all on the ground that 34 years ago Canada offered us Preference, and that in the interval nothing has been done. I have been a member of a Government for about three years, and I accept my three years share of blame and ask him to apportion the rest of the blame among those responsible for the other 31 years. I share the hon. Member's hope for the future. I say sincerely that I do not think there is one hon. Member who is not dissatisfied with the existing Imperial position. No matter what view they may take on Preference or anything else, no one can be happy with the present state of affairs. Although there have been numerous Imperial conferences it is true to say that far too much time has been taken up with these political issues. I never disguise from the House or the country my view of the terrible difficulty I had at the last Imperial Conference, when nine-tenths of the time was occupied by these political questions and no time was available for economic questions.
Do not let the House make the mistake of assuming that the Dominions are not keen on this matter. I can assure my hon. Friend of the strong feeling that exists. They have pressed that this Bill should become law at the time specified. If things were as bad as my hon. Friend suggests, it would only be putting off the evil day to postpone the operation of the Act. He knows perfectly well that his Amendment will not be carried. He has delivered a charming little speech, not in support of the Amendment, but in support of 101 other things not connected with it. If he is as anxious as I am that we shall seriously and surely
get down to these fundamental economic questions that are vital to the British Commonwealth, he must admit that the sooner we get rid of these political differences the better. This Bill is a way of getting rid of them. I believe that the Bill will for a long time get rid of these political differences, and I would ask the Committee whether they would be wise to consider even for a moment the idea of postponing the Bill for 12 months, seeing that we are committed to every one of the Dominions. They have complied with their side of the bargain in having sent in their request in the usual way, and surely it is for us to comply with ours.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: My right hon. Friend has complained that the Mover of the Amendment did not endeavour to prove his case. In other words, he suggests that nay hon. Friend did not get close to the Amendment. I think that suggestion was unjustified, and I will try to rectify the position. It is not a case of endeavouring to fulfil something that all the Dominions have asked for. As far as I can find out, and I have made many inquiries, very few of the Dominions are urgently demanding that this Bill should become an Act by 1931. I have here two or three expressions of opinion from the Dominions asking that the Bill should be postponed so that the States of Australia, including Tasmania, should be further consulted before definite action is taken. We in this House owe an obligation to those States to ensure that their views are considered and represented in this House. The Mover of the Amendment suggested that it is 34 years since Canada first raised the question of Imperial Preference. That is not now the issue. We have an Empire or a Commonwealth which started in 1607, when Newfoundland was first acquired. This was followed by Canada coming into the Empire in 1763, and so on through our history we find the various Dominions desiring and seeking to become part and parcel of this great Commonwealth. Now, in two days and against the will and desire of certain constituent parts of the Empire, we are going to reverse the whole structure, and we are doing that, in face of the demand of the States of Australian that the matter should be reconsidered.
It is no great argument for the right hon. Gentleman to say that some of the
Dominions want the Bill for political reasons. We know, for instance, that when the elections take place in the Fret State next year the political head of the Free State wants his opponents' arrows to be blunted. It will be entirely unwise for us in this very short; space of time to take a drastic action which affects the whole constitutional situation not only of the Empire and this country but possibly of India. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the Economic Conference will take place next year. That is an abundant reason for postponing the operation of the Bill for one year. In the atmosphere which we hope the Economic Conference will develop, when, if our hopes materialise, there will he an economic unity established, it will be regarded as the right atmosphere for the bringing about of closer political unity. Therefore, we should find that we have translated this Bill into law at the very time when we should hold our hands for a few months. We desire to make this Bill a real constructive Act which will bring about closer economic and political bonds than we have visualised before. The right hon. Gentleman, while expressing his views fairly and fully, has perhaps forgotten what is at stake. As an Empire lover, I appeal to him for a little delay, and I suggest that he should not reject the Amendment.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I should like to support the Amendment. I think the right hon. Gentleman has dismissed it much too summarily. If this Statute means anything at all, it is a new charter for the British Empire. We know that there is to be a great conference of Dominion representatives at Ottawa which may very well alter the bonds which bind the Empire together. We have some reason to complain of the speed with which this great Charter has been pushed through the House. The Bill has only been in the Vote Office for a few days. Some time ago, when some of us who are interested in the matter heard that the matter was being discussed by experts, we asked for some information as to the provisional form in which the Statute of Westminster was to be drafted, but we were unable to get even a draft of the Statute. The Bill has been suddenly introduced, and after a very short time it is to be passed into law.
If the Bill is of any importance it is of very great importance to the British Empire as a whole, and now we are told that it must be passed into law within a few weeks. Having regard to the fact that the Imperial Conference is about to meet at Ottawa and that the Dominion Secretary has told us that, he is about to go on a tour through the Empire in order to reconstitute the bonds which should bind it together, I think it would be very much better if the Statute were postponed until next year. We have a National Government in power which looks at national and Empire affairs from an entirely new angle, and we hope that they will get a move on in regard to matters which have been put aside at the various Imperial Conferences, so that those matters may become a great Empire reality. We cannot at the moment forecast all that that reality is to be. Therefore, it would be better if we postponed the operation of the Statute of Westminster for a year so that it can be made a reality and not a semblance, as it is at the moment.

Mr. MANDER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say that he will give this matter further consideration or that he will give the Committee certain assurances in regard to the Australian States. There can he no doubt that the Australian States are very much concerned as to their rights in the future under this Act. Within the last two days a resolution has been adopted by the Tasmanian Parliament. The message that reaches us says that:
Both Houses of Parliament passed a resolution protesting against the passage of the Statute of Westminster by the Imperial Parliament. The Government urge that the passage of the Statute be deferred with a view to full consultation with the States. The States have never been consulted and they desire full opportunity for the consideration of their views. South Australia telegraphed support of Tasmania's request that the Statute be not proceeded with.
I am a supporter of the Statute. It is to be put through in accordance with agreement in various parts of the Empire, but we want to do it with all in the Empire feeling thoroughly satisfied that their position has been met beyond any doubt, and if by a slight delay in the passage of the Bill they could be persuaded that the points in which they are
interested have not been overlooked, I cannot help thinking that it would be for the good of the Empire in the future. In view of the strongly expressed doubt which exists in Tasmania and Western Australia I hope the Secretary of State will be able to say something which will give assurance where assurance is certainly wanted.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: If there were any justification for pointing out the dangers of a discussion such as that raised by the hon. Gentleman, it would be made manifest should this House begin to differentiate in the internal affairs of the Dominions. It is not for me to comment on the merits of the case, except to state this fact. Every Member who has followed Australian polities during the last two years knows perfectly well the differences existing with regard to the Federal Parliament and the States for reasons disconnected entirely with this Statute. We know the agitation that has taken place in some cases for separation. It would be a profound mistake for this Parliament, which is itself responsible for the Australian Constitution, to take sides. Nothing would be more dangerous to Imperial unity than that. It is not my business to comment on any view, either of Tasmania, New South Wales or anywhere else, because I should then be balancing one State against another. We are concerned with the fact that the Imperial Conference is a conference of Dominion Governments, and it is the Dominion Government representatives who have come to this conclusion. In the same way, look how dangerous it would be if, for instance. Ontario or Quebec had expressed certain opinions on some religious question. You would expect no Secretary of State to get up in this House and take a particular view because of that expression of opinion. The Dominion Parliament would at once say, "This is a domestic matter for which we ourselves are responsible and which we must deal with."
I beg hon. Members to keep in mind that the Statute of Westminster and all involved in it is the request of the Dominions for this legislation. We were under a solemn pledge at their request. Having met them, we had to give effect to it. Is my hon. Friend quite fair when
he says that this is being rushed? He was a Member of the House in 1926, and it is not fair of those who have to accept responsibility for 1926 legislation to complain now. All that this Statute of Westminster does is to give legislative effect to what was implied and intended by the 1926 Conference. It is no good for any one to excuse themselves by saying that they had not thought of it, and had not known the implications of it. So far as I am concerned this is a legacy to me. I have never disguised my opinion that I hate a written constitution. In my judgment the value of the British constitution is that it was an unwritten constitution, and I have never disguised that view. My hon. Friend was in the Government of 1926 which left me the legacy, and I had to deal with it. I found that we were committed, and that these obligations were entered into. I found, and the Labour Government found, that this was something which was a fait accompli. What other course was there for any Government than to say, "Certainly, whatever our personal views, we are going to implement it"? That is exactly what happened, and that is the history of the Bill we are now discussing. The Amendment before the House is to defer it for 12 months. My hon. Friend in his speech suggested as the reason for deferring it that we are going to meet at Ottawa. Surely my hon. Friend knows this question is excluded from Ottawa. You must not confuse the next Ottawa Conference with an Imperial Conference. It is adjourned as an Economic Conference, not as an Imperial Conference, and this question would be absolutely ruled out.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I quite appreciate that point of view, but what I was saying was that probably, in view of the reassembly of the Economic Conference, there might be a spirit engendered at that conference which would create a desire for closer political as well as economic union. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Dominions pressed in 1926 for this revised Constitution, but was it not rather owing to the failure of any economic help from us that there had to be something found for the conference to do, and that this point was raised?

Mr. THOMAS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is entirely in error. He
knows nothing of the history of the matter if he says that. The 1926 Imperial Conference was responsible for the Balfour declaration, and that was the first declaration which substituted for the British Empire the British Commonwealth of Nations. In 1929 it was necessary to give legal effect to the declaration, and the legal experts of the Dominions met for that purpose. The 1930 Imperial Conference was then called to consider what the legal gentlemen had referred to it. That is the history of the matter. I repeat that the genesis of the whole thing was in 1926. Take the other point about the spirit of the next Ottawa Conference. There is common agreement that we want to start in an atmosphere of good will, but are you not doing the reverse by accepting this Amendment? You may take it that a number of Dominions will say, "Last year you solemnly placed on record a promise that the Statute of Westminster should be law before December of this year." I answer "Yes, it is quite true. I did promise, but we thought von would be better pleased if we did not fulfil our promise." That is not an atmosphere in which to get good will. It is for these reasons, and because I know the Dominions are keen on it, and that many of them would look on the Amendment as a breach of faith, that it is impossible to accept the Amendment.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has submitted one of the most extraordinary arguments ever submitted to the House of Commons. To what does it amount? Tasmania objects, Western Australia objects, certain other Colonies object. But we are bound because delegates to an Imperial Conference have among themselves come to a certain agreement. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has the slightest evidence that members of the public in these Dominions have been fully informed, or that one per cent. of the population of Great Britain know what we are doing? Coming up in the train this morning, I asked everyone I could about it, and I did not find one individual who knew what the Statute of Westminster meant. By what right is this Measure put before us merely because delegates at a conference said, "By 1931 you shall have the Statute of Westminster"? By what right did they
enter into that obligation on behalf of the Imperial Parliament? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that they have no right or authority. I am one of those who resent bitterly that this Measure, which was put before us on Friday, is to be passed within a day or two and become law by the end of this year. There has been no argument submitted to this House to justify such action, and everything the right hon. Gentleman has said strengthens me in that view.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Saving with respect to Irish Free State and Northern Ireland.)

"Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to authorise the Legislature of the Irish Free State to repeal, amend, or alter the Irish Free State Agreement Act, 1922, or the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922, or so much of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, as continues to be in force in Northern Ireland."—[Colonel Gretton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause he read a Second time."
I am moving this Clause because the same constitutional question is already provided for in the Bill in its relation to the Constitution of Canada, the British North America Act, the Commonwealth Act of Australia and the Constitution Act of the Dominion of New Zealand. It is true that exemption is not made in relation to the Constitution of the Union of South Africa. The Government of South Africa have taken action, and affirmed their Constitution unanimously and in definite language, and they have said that they consider and believe it is outside the purview of the Statute of Westminster. The Irish Free State have taken no steps whatever in the matter. It appears to many of us that this question of what is the position of the Irish Free State under the new Statute is very vital. We cannot look on the Free State as if we were regarding the case of a distant Dominion. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because there is some-
thing compelling in geography. Ireland lies across our access to the Atlantic Ocean. She narrows down the highways of the sea into two channels of approach; by the Northern coast of Ireland to the Clyde and Western coast and by her Southern shores into the English Channel. We are bound to look at the proximity of Ireland, which makes her a special case. The Government of Ireland was set up in consequence of Articles of Agreement come to in 1922. The Articles of Agreement are embodied in the Irish Free State Agreement Act and carried forward in the Irish Free State Constitution Act, 1922. I will say something about these Articles of Agreement before I sit down. It is useless to argue that there is no legal obligation. They are enshrined in those two Statutes.
This Parliament and the Parliament in Dublin have both enacted the Articles of Agreement which are the basis of the position as it stands to-day. We have thought it necessary to put the agreement into an Act of Parliament. The legal position is beyond dispute. The Irish Free State is a new State, and, as everyone is aware, there are two parties who hold very different views, as expressed by them, as to the relations of its Government to this country. Mr. Cosgrave, who is the head of the party which now forms the Irish Government, has invariably clone his best to maintain friendly relations, and to maintain the British connection, but there are other Members in his Government whose expressions from time to time make one believe that even his Government is not entirely unanimous in this matter. The party which, in the Free State, is in opposition is undoubtedly opposed to any connection of the Irish Free State with this country, or even with the British Empire—or the British Commonwealth of Nations, as it is called in the Bill that we are now debating.
What is proposed in Clause 2, and especially in Sub-section (2), is to confer upon the Irish Free State the power to revoke any law which may have been enacted in this country or in a Dominion, either previous to, or after, the passing of the Statute of Westminster. The proposal is to endow the Parliament in Dublin with powers to revoke legislation which is set up by the Articles of Agreement between this country and the Irish
Free State, and so to set on one side the Irish Constitution, as set up in the Irish Constitution Act. Nothing could be more satsifactory than the speeches which Mr. Cosgrave has been making lately, but he cannot speak for the whole Free State, and it is well known that there is great danger of a revocation and a repeal of both these enactments, if the Opposition party should obtain a majority. Surely this Parliament is not going to take action which will make the status of the Free State, in regard to the United Kingdom, the sport of factions and parties in Ireland or elsewhere. This is a very serious matter, and it imperils the legal obligation. No one denies that. Why deliberately set aside that legal obligation, and those ties that we considered wise and necessary? We should only be inviting the separatist party in the Irish Free State by the passing of this Bill without some such Clause as I am proposing, to take legally the very step which they propose, and which we maintain, in this country, would be an immoral step. They could take it without its being illegal.
Now, if the House will bear with me, I come to point out what is contained in the Articles of Agreement which remain in force. Article 4 includes the Oath of Allegiance to the Throne, the one bond which unites the constituent nations of the British Empire. Article 5, which has been accepted by mutual agreement, deals with the public Debt. Article 6 relates to defence, and lays down that the Irish Free State shall not have a fleet, at any rate at present. It is only able to undertake coastal defence. Article 7 provides that the Free State:
shall afford to His Majesty's Imperial Forces:
(a) in time of peace such harbour and other facilities as are indicated in the Annex hereto…
and
(b) In time of War or of strained relations with a foreign power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for purposes of defence…
Can we afford to put on one side provisions of that kind? It would be most unsafe, suicidal, to lay upon one side those Articles, unless we were going to replace them by something else. We should raise the whole question of the standing of the Free State and ourselves, questions which we hoped had been
settled, although in a manner painful and very unsatisfactory, to many of us who are now in this House. Then there was a limitation of armament laid down, by which the Free State Army is not to be greater, in proportion to its population, than the Army of the United Kingdom. There are other provisions in these Articles of Agreement, with regard to religious agreement, and to the protection of minorities. One of the Articles provides the option for Northern Ireland not to come under the proposed Constitution of the Free State, but to exercise that option to set up a Northern Ireland Government, which has been adopted. That is the legal status which Northern Ireland has adopted to-day.
All these matters are of very great importance, and if you give the Free State Parliament power to set them all on one side, and legally to tear up this Agreement, we are, I respectfully submit, running a risk and taking upon ourselves a responsibility which, in face of the nation, we have no business to assume. Has the history of the Irish Free State been so tranquil, or has the Free State so long had a Government, that it may be regarded as fully and firmly established? We know that that is not so. It is a new country, with a new organisation and a new form of Government. Whatever action it may be wise, prudent and statesmanlike to take in the future, hurriedly to set on one side the whole of the foundation of the Agreement between the Free State and ourselves is certainly most rash, and is certainly not statesmanlike.
I do not wish to detain the House too long. There are many others who have arguments to advance in this matter. I finish as I began, with the statement that the Irish Free State stands upon a different footing from the other Dominions. It is the youngest and least firmly established, with a geographical position which makes it incumbent upon us to see that certain stipulations are not set upon one side, and that agreements are not torn up, in regard to it. I am fully conscious that the moral obligation is strong. Why tilt against the legal obligation which has been entered into? What is the meaning of setting these matters upon one side? It has been said that an election is pending, and that it might
prejudice the present Government of Mr. Cosgrave to insert this new Clause which I am asking the House to accept. What has that to do with legislation of a permanent character? Can we be deterred from doing what is our duty, incumbent upon us, because there is an election pending in one of the Dominions? I feel that that might be a very good argument for accepting the Amendment, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville), to put the whole matter off for a year, until the election has taken place, but surely we are not to make the position of Ireland in the British Commonwealth of Nations the sport of one election. I hold the view, and many other people hold the view, that because Mr. Cosgrave desires to maintain the status quo in the relations between this country and the Free State, he would be safer and stronger with this legal obligation to serve him. It would enable him to say: "I am not only bound morally, but bound legally."
The Irish Free State has never found the Parliament in this country in late years unwilling to meet the desires of the Dominions. We have been perhaps too ready to meet them in some respects. This Parliament has been most complaisant and friendly with the Irish Free State since it was set up by its own act. I will not detain the House longer. I urge that this new Clause should be accepted for the reasons I have given, and for many reasons which my hon. Friends will urge in subsequent speeches.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: On Friday after-noon, in response to a very keen desire in all parts of the House, I promised that, between then and to-day, the Government should not only be informed of the Debate, and of the strong feeling that existed, more especially in connection with this particular point, but that the opportunity should be given to review the whole situation. Therefore, in the attitude that I adopt at this moment, I can assure the House that every consideration was given to this Amendment, and that every endeavour was made to fulfil the promise I made that full Cabinet consideration should be given to it. But I want to submit that it is not quite fair, in a Debate of this kind, to separate or distinguish between one Dominion and
another. Nothing could be more fatal to Imperial unity than for this House to differentiate in such a way. Incidentally, the answer to my right hon. and gallant Friend's statement, that after all the Irish Free State has not a very long record as a, Government, is that he cannot point to another Dominion covering the same period with such a stable Government as the Irish Free State. Take the period since the Treaty and keep in mind all the circumstances that led up to the Treaty. I think it is a remarkable tribute to the Irish people that from the day the Treaty was signed to this moment there has never been a change of Government, except the return of a Government pledged absolutely to preservation of the Treaty. Who is there who will suggest that Ireland, so far as political faith is concerned, has not been much more consistent than this country as a whole?
I would say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that I listened to the very powerful speech and the very powerful plea that he made on Friday. I could not quite understand his position then, and I cannot understand it to-day, because he first said, in defending his attitude on Friday with regard to the 1926 declaration, that the late Lord Balfour had said to him, in justification of his now famous formula, that he made that formula because he did not believe in wooden guns. In other words the only justification for that statement was that Lord Balfour meant then—it would be the only construction to put upon his words—that no mere paper security is equal to the good will and the confidence of the people themselves. Is not that the real answer to the Amendment now proposed?
I would remind the House of the different circumstances to-day. After years of bitter hostility and war, when passions were aroused, when there was a tremendous feeling and a tremendous loss of life, between Ireland and this country a treaty was made, to which the right hon. Gentleman who now supports this Amendment was a party. It was then his responsible duty to defend the treaty in this House. The same arguments were used and almost the same Amendments —it was the same principle underlying the Amendments—were moved then, when
the right hon. Gentleman was defending the treaty. Let me point to the relevance of his answer then to the position to-day. There was an Amendment moved calling upon His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to accept the responsibility for the payment of compensation under Article 10. In other words, although there had been an agreement, a moral obligation, a treaty obligation as between two parties, just as this Amendment now says, although we admit there is a treaty, although we admit there is a moral obligation, yet we are asked to safeguard it by putting something in an Act of Parliament. That is exactly the Amendment that was put down years ago, and the right hon. Member for Epping was called upon to accept it or to reject it, as I am called upon now. This was his answer:
I do not propose to accept this Amendment and to write this upon the text of the present Bill. I think that to do so would be to throw a quite unjustifiable slur upon the action of a Government which has not yet come into existence, and which, if it comes into existence at all, will do so on the basis of the Treaty, and will, we must assume, honourably execute the provisions of the Treaty. I could not accept the suggestion that this provision be inserted. I think it would tend to encourage people to think that they were entitled to evade their obligations, and to regard it as a statutory provision, in the event of their doing so, for the Government assuming the responsibility. It would be most unfortunate to begin by assuming that an Trish Free State Government—which, after all, is the goal of this policy, and without which the policy would fail and many grave and immeasurable evils would supervene in our affairs—would not carry out its obligations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1922; col. 1343, Vol. 151.]
That was the reason why the right hon. Member for Epping could not accept the wooden Amendment. He knew perfectly well that a moral obligation signed between two contracting parties and faithfully observed, must by the very nature of things be more binding than a mere Amendment in a Bill. He refused to accept the Amendment. Indeed, he went beyond that. In his final words he said:
It is from these two motives, faith and hope, that we are entitled on the Third Reading of this Bill to say 'We have put our hands to the plough and we will not look back.' "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1922; col. 1432, Vol. 151.]
That was the right hon. Gentleman's answer in 1922, when he had to persuade the British Parliament to trust the good name and faith of the Irish people, when he had to say to this House and to many of his own friends who were bitterly opposed, "We believe in the Irish people. We ask you to trust them because their word is far better than any Amendment that I could put into the Bill." Last Friday the right hon. Gentleman recalled the names of men whom both he and I knew. He paid the greatest tribute to Michael Collins. He paid tribute to Arthur Griffiths and many others. I submit to him that it is not fair, in this connection, to mention their names, and not to realise that President Cosgrave is taking the same risks, and is prepared, if need be, to make the same sacrifice for the same object that they gave their lives for. Are we not entitled to keep in mind the fact that no speaker on Friday and no speaker this evening has doubted President Cosgrave's word? No one for one moment has challenged Mr. Cosgrave's word. But the doubt has been in connection with the supposition that Mr. De Valera may be returned. That has been the argument used by everyone.
If you want to ensure the return of Mr. De Valera, then carry this Amendment. Just imagine an Irish Election taking place, after the lives that we have mentioned were sacrificed, and imagine every Irishman being able to say, "They not only do not trust De Valera, but they do not trust Cosgrave." That would ensure not only the return of Mr. De Valera, but it would ensure that every Irishman who had sacrificed so much in defence of the Treaty, would have lost hope and would never meet us again. In this connection, I think I ought to read one passage from a letter sent by Mr. Cosgrave to the Prime Minister on Monday of this week. There was a suggestion that although Michael Collins and the others had fought for the Treaty, there was a large section in Ireland, even represented in the Government, who were more lukewarm on the matter. The report of the Debate on Friday was read by Mr. Cosgrave, who sent this letter to the Prime Minister under date 21st November:
Dear Prime Minister,
I have read the report of last Friday's Debate in the House of Commons on the Statute of Westminster Bill, and am gravely concerned at Mr. Thomas's concluding statement that the Government will be asked to consider the whole situation in the light of the Debate. I sincerely hope that this does not indicate any possibility that your Government would take the course of accepting an Amendment relating to the Irish Free State. I need scarcely impress upon you that the maintenance of the happy relations which now exist between our two countries is absolutely dependent upon the continued acceptance by each of us of the good faith of the other. This situation has been constantly present to our minds, and we have reiterated time and again that the Treaty is an agreement which can only be altered by consent. I mention this particularly, because there seems to be a mistaken view in some quarters that the solemnity of this instrument in our eyes could derive any additional strength from a Parliamentary law. So far from this being the case, any attempt to erect a Statute of the British Parliament into a safeguard of the Treaty would have quite the opposite effect here, and would rather tend to give rise in the minds of our people to a doubt as to the sanctity of this instrument.
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), when this discussion took place on Friday as to what was the view at this moment on the moral obligation of this Treaty, spoke to me privately, and I said to him that I felt there was no doubt in the minds of the Irish Government on this point. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that the quotation I have read is the best answer to that question. Therefore, what I submit to the House is this: Suppose that you were to accept this Amendment, does any member of the Committee assume that it would be binding on Mr. De Valera if he were to come back? Are there any Members here who would feel satisfied that by inserting this Amendment they had safeguarded anything? If there were returned to the Irish Parliament a body of people who were determined to break the Agreement nothing that could be done in this Committee by this Amendment would stop it. It is because I believe that the moral issue is greater; it is because I believe that the Irish people are anxious and ready to fulfil and to discharge to the full their obligations, that I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
Further down on the Paper there is one other suggestion that the same principle should apply to South Africa.
South Africa and Ireland are the two Dominions with which there are Treaty obligations. I ask the Committee: do you think for one moment that on a division you would dare to insert a Clause that this should be applied to South Africa? Is there any Member, knowing the position in South Africa, who would dare to risk it? If you dare not risk it for South Africa, then if you insert Ireland you merely brand her to the world, with the proclamation that the one Dominion that you cannot trust is Ireland. That would be the net effect. It is because I believe that in the end that course would be disastrous; it is because I do not believe that it is a real safeguard; it is because I believe that, in the end, it is better to trust the Irish people and that that will, after all, be the real and permanent safeguard, that I say that the Government are unable to accept this Amendment.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I ask the permission of the Committee to say a few words on this subject, but I shall detain them only for a few moments. I am one of the small and diminishing band of those who were signatories to the Irish Treaty, and I was one of the members of the Imperial Relations Committee of the Conference of 1926. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominions Affairs will not press too far the responsibility of those who drafted the report of that Committee or agreed to it, for all the conclusions which other people, three years later, have felt it proper and fit to draw from that committee's report. While the committee of 1926 had no difficulty in defining the actual position at that moment of the Dominions and this country, within the British Commonwealth of Nations, the committee—and its chairman, Lord Balfour, in particular, was careful to do so—laid stress upon the fact that no such mere negative statement was any adequate exposition of the relations of the different parts of the British Commonwealth one with another. They insisted with equal emphasis upon the constructive, and, if I may so call it, the relating work which had to be done, the spirit in which it must be approached, and the way in which with this new spirit and in these new words, the unity of the Empire should be preserved even when
the authority of the Motherland over the self-governing Dominions was entirely abandoned.
By the Treaty with Ireland we placed the Irish Free State upon the footing of a Dominion. We made what, by the wish of the Irish themselves, was called a Treaty or Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between the Irish nation and ourselves. I am content to trust to the good faith of the Irish Government, who have given us every reason to trust their good faith since that Government was established, as long as I know that they definitely accept the obligations which that Treaty imposes upon them. I confess that as I listened to the Debate on Friday I felt not a little anxiety lest by the Statute of Westminster we should not merely be withdrawing statutory sanction from the Treaty but should be destroying the moral obligations of the Treaty itself; that, we should not only be removing the particular basis if you like, upon which the Treaty has hitherto rested, but that we should be, if not directly taking away, at any rate authorising the other party to the Treaty to take away the Treaty itself or abolish its conditions as they liked. For my part, I felt that keenly, and it was that which led me to speak privately to the right hon. Gentleman, as he has said, just after the conclusion of the Debate.
I am satisfied with the public acknowledgment by the authorised spokesman of the Irish Free State Government that the Treaty is an agreement between the two nations, standing, irrespective of statutory authority, upon their mutual faith, and only to be altered by their common consent. That gives me all that I could ask and all that I want. On that understanding, and accepting it in the spirit in which it is made, and in which the Irish Government have acted since their establishment, I shall go now with confidence and faith into the Lobby on behalf of the Statute.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The argument of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs that the Irish Free State had the most stable Government of any of the Dominions since the War did not seem to me to be altogether relevant to the issue. What some hon. Members are obviously anxious about is not what Mr. Cosgrave's Government may or may not
have done, but what a Government, of which Mr. De Valera may be the head, may do in the future. Therefore, for the right hon. Gentleman to say that Mr. Cosgrave is a, man of high character—which we all know—and that he is head of one of the most stable Governments in any of the Dominions since the War is not quite relevant. Upon this question I submit two points. The first is a point which has not, I think, been made clear in the Debates either on Friday or to-day. Do we or do we not in this Committee accept the Treaty made between the Irish Free State and this country in 1922 as a binding obligation which cannot be altered in any circumstances by one of the parties? For my part, I always regarded the terrible operations which were conducted in Ireland during 1920, 1921 and 1922 in the light of a war between two nations, and a particularly horrible type of war. I always regarded the Treaty which was negotiated by the Coalition Government of that time as nothing short of an international agreement between the two nations. I do not think that anything which we may insert in this Bill to-night or leave out of it can possibly, in international law, alter by one hair's breadth the obligations which rest upon this country and upon the Irish Free State and upon no other country in the world, in relation to the Treaty of 1922.
Take the position of this country at the moment. It is well known that we would like to impose an embargo upon certain classes of goods coming from Europe. Why are we deterred from doing so? Why are we unable to put an embargo on German goods? For the simple reason that we—rightly—consider ourselves bound by the commercial Treaty which we signed a few years ago with Germany. For exactly the same reason I maintain that the Irish Free State is equally bound by the terms of the Treaty of 1922 and could pass no legislation violating the terms of that Treaty without, in fact, breaking the Treaty. If they are determined to break the Treaty nothing that we can do here will stop them—no legislation of this House of Commons will stop them. The second point is that the problems of to-day are not political but economic. The future will be dominated by events which will happen in the economic sphere. The
House of Commons will discover that before many months have passed. The Government will discover that, probably to its cost, because it has some terrible economic problems to face.
I do not believe that the relations between this country and the Irish Free State will worsen in the course of the next few years, because I am convinced that the Irish Free State is economically dependent on this country. In the wider field, I believe that the whole future of the British Empire depends not on constitutional formulae of one kind or another, but on the degree of economic co-operation which we are able to establish in the course of the next few years. If the constituent parts of the Empire can be made economically dependent on each other, the Empire will survive. No mere political issue can possibly smash it. Constitutional legislation of the type which we are discussing to-night, in this age can neither terminate nor perpetuate the British Empire as an entity. For my part, I oppose this Amendment, not because I do not sympathise with the natural apprehensions of those who have brought it forward, but because I believe that it might, from a purely political point of view, raise certain apprehensions in the Irish Free State. I believe that it might well bring an accession of electoral and voting strength to Mr. De Valera. I believe that our own position is safeguarded by the terms of the Treaty, and I do not want to see the economic issues, which I believe to be fundamental and vital to-day, prejudiced in any way by political issues which, in this connection, I regard as irrelevant at the present time.

8.0 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: The Secretary of State for the Dominions almost in the last words of his speech said that it was not fair to differentiate between one Dominion and another. He followed that statement by quoting a letter from Mr. Cosgrave, the leader of the Government of the Irish Free State. In passing, may I suggest that it is very unusual for the leader of a political party in another Government—one of the Governments in the British Commonwealth—to intervene in a discussion in this Parliament with a view to affecting the decision of the House of Commons. I
wonder what would be said if a letter from the British Prime Minister or the Lord President of the Council were to be read by Mr. Cosgrave in the Dáil with a view to influencing the decision of that body. On the point as to whether or not it is fair to differentiate between one Dominion and another, I crave the indulgence of the Committee to read a few sentences which I think are more á propos than the opinion of a gentleman who is not a Member of this House of Commons. These are sentences used by the prime author of the Treaty and one of the first signatories to the Treaty, namely, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). Referring to the various difficulties in the way of the creation of the Irish Free State as a Dominion, this is hat he said in this House on the 14th December, 1921, when he was explaining the Articles of Agreement in the Debate on the Address:
There was the difficulty that arose from the geographical and strategical position of Ireland. There was no use saying, 'You must treat Ireland exactly as you treat Canada or Australia. There was Ireland, right across the ocean. The security of this country depends on what happens on this breakwater, this advance post, this front trench of Britain. We knew that, and that was one of the greatest difficulties with which we had to deal. There was no use saying: Apply Dominion Home Rule fully and completely. We had to safeguard the security of this land."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1921; col. 32, Vol. 149.]
Then he went on to deal with other difficulties. I think that is an almost conclusive reply to the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Dominions that it is not fair to differentiate between one Dominion and another. Having regard to the long quotation that we have had from Mr. Cosgrave, may I quote a few more words from the same right hon. Gentleman, when this House first had an explanation of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty? It is very á propos indeed to the Statute of Westminster. This is what he said:
The main operation of this scheme is the raising of Ireland to the status of a Dominion of the British Empire—that of a Free State within the Empire, with a common citizenship, and, by virtue of that membership in the Empire and of that common citizenship, owning allegiance to the King…I will explain as best I can the nature and extent of this transaction.
What does 'Dominion status' mean? It is difficult and dangerous to give a definition. When I made a statement at the request of the Imperial Conference to this House as to what had passed at our gathering, I pointed out the anxiety of all the Dominion delegates not to have any rigid definitions. That is not the way of the British constitution. We realise the danger of rigidity and the danger of limiting our constitution by too many finalities. Many of the Premiers delivered notable speeches in the course of that conference, emphasising the importance of not defining too precisely what the relations of the Dominions were with ourselves, what were their powers, and what was the limit of the power of the Crown. It is something that has never been defined by an Act of Parliament, even in this country, and yet it works perfectly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1921; cols. 27–8, Vol. 149.]
I venture to say that those arguments apply equally to-day as they did when the Irish Treaty was first explained to this House by the then Prime Minister. If I may return to the speech with which the learned Solicitor-General concluded the Debate in this House on Friday last, he said:
There is nobody in a responsible position, either in this country or in Ireland, to-day who intends to repeal that Treaty." —[OFFCIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1931; col. 1249, Vol. 259.]
Assuming that to be correct, can anyone say what is the objection to putting in a Clause, or how it can be offensive to people who do not intend to repeal the Treaty to say that this Act of Parliament which we are now passing is not intended to affect the Treaty? If people are so touchy as that, they are not fit to be governing a great Dominion. What on earth is there to object to? Why is the Irish Free State more touchy than Canada? Words are inserted in the cases of Canada, of New Zealand, and of Australia, saying that the great Treaties which affect the constitution of those countries are not affected by this Bill which we are considering. Who are the Irish Free State, who are in far closer relationship and far more intermingled with this country than any of those far-flung Dominions, to be touchy and to take offence if we put in a Clause saying that nothing in this Bill shall affect the Treaty which we are told none of them want to alter?
We have heard that no one wants to alter it, but what about the speeches which have quite recently been delivered
by Mr. Cosgrave on the matter? Then also we have the speeches of the Minister for External Affairs, Mr. McGilligan. For months past, Mr. McGilligan, who was the delegate of the Irish Free State at the Imperial Conference, has announced his intention of introducing legislation which will repeal the appeal to the Privy Council, an integral part of the Treaty. Mr. Cosgrave himself, at the annual Convention of the Government party on the 5th May last, said:
Appeals to the Judicial Committee from our Supreme Court are an anomaly and an anachronism. Their continuance is incompatible with our status, and is au insult to our dignity and sense of fairplay. This appeal must disappear at once.
That is Mr. Cosgrave, who, we are told, looks upon the Treaty as irrevocable. Can anyone say that that is not included or a part of the Treaty? Let me refer to what the then Attorney-General, Sir Douglas Hogg, who is now Lord Hailsham, said, in winding up the Debate on the Irish Constitution Bill on the 27th November, 1922:
If Article 66 were not in, I am inclined to think that there would still be a right of appeal to the Privy Council, because it has been held more than once in the Privy Council that you cannot take away that prerogative of the Crown except by express words; but in order to prevent any doubt on the matter, you have in Article 66 the expressed provision:
'Provided that nothing in this Constitution shall impair the right of any person to petition His Majesty for special leave to petition from the Supreme Court to His Majesty in Council, or the right of His Majesty to grant such leave.'"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1922; cols. 376–7, Vol. 159.]
Yet Mr. Cosgrave says that it is contrary to the dignity and sense of fair play of the Free State Government. Speaking in the Dail on the 17th July, Mr. McGilligan, the Minister for External Affairs, not a nobody, not a more man in the street, but the man responsible for the external relations of the Free State, said:
The British Monarch, as King, was finished entirely so far as the Free State was concerned, and everything done was at the will of the Irish people.
Again, if you refer to the "Journal of the Parliaments of the Empire" which has just been circulated, you will find there a speech by Mr. McGilligan in the Dail, in which he was moving the adoption of the Statute of Westminster, where he says:
No argument…could be upheld that for diplomatic or political purposes the Commonwealth of Nations was one entity. When we agreed to this recital in the form in which it appears…we were simply stating that in the exercise of our sovereign legislative powers, which exist apart from and over and above all other considerations, which are supreme, paramount and uncontrolled, we would have regard to the desirability for uniformity of reference, to the symbol of the association and the desirability for avoidance of legal confusion in regard to the Succession. That is the extent of the meaning of this recital. It assumes the absolute inherent right of each of the Parliaments to legislate for the Crown without regard to these considerations…the summing up of the whole aim and the whole result of the Conferences of 1926, 1928 and 1930: that one had to get completely rid of any power, either actual or feared, that the British Government had in relation to this country.' Because that result had been achieved, he asked the Dail to pass the Resolution.
So much for Mr. Cosgrave and his Minister, but what about the Opposition? After all, there is an election pending in a few weeks' time in Ireland. We have seen cataclysms in this country, and who is to say that Mr. Cosgrave is always going to remain President of the Dail? What about Mr. De Valera, who is the Leader of the Opposition? At the annual Conference of the Fianna Fail party, held in Dublin in October, Mr. De Valera declared:
In regard to our relations with Britain, our attitude will be one of non-co-operation so long as Britain persists in any attempt to enforce the terms of the imposed Treaty upon us.
That is plain speaking, and he is the Leader of the Irish Opposition. Are we entitled to take any risks? He further stated that the oath prescribed by the Treaty must go, and that the office of Governor-General must be assimilated to that of President of the Republic. At the annual Fheis of Siann Feinn, held at Dublin on the 4th October, the President declared:
England is in the mire to-day. England is in the lash of destiny. She has pickled herself for her own trouncing. England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity.
That is not ancient history, but last month. Do let us be practical. Do not let us deal with this matter with washy sentimentality, but let us remember, as Members of the House of Commons, our debt of honour and the assurances we gave not only to the Protestant minority
in Southern Ireland with regard to their religious freedom, but with regard to the Irish harbour rights of the British Navy in time of war, with regard to the limitation of Irish armaments, and with regard to the other things mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). Quite unconsciously, the Solicitor-General misled the Committee by saying that there was no one of importance in Ireland who now says the Treaty should be torn up.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I did not say that.

Sir W. DAVISON: The hon. and learned Gentleman said:
There is nobody in a responsible position, either in this country or in Ireland, to-day who intends to repeal that Treaty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1931; col. 1249, Vol. 259.]
I have ventured to submit to the Committee sonic reasons why I think that that is not strictly accurate. The Dominions Secretary has said that if you were to put this Clause in the Statute, you would gravely embarrass Mr. Cosgrave. I quite agree that Mr. Cosgrave is a very gallant gentleman, and we all owe him admiration. He has a very difficult task, and I think he has performed it with great courage, so that, speaking personally for myself and, I believe, also for a great many others, we owe him admiration for the courageous way in which he has discharged his task.
But let us look into this matter. Will he be in a worse position if this Clause is passed? I submit that he will not. If this Clause is not passed, the Free State, at any rate legally, can repeal the Irish Free State Constitution, but if the Clause is put in, the Dail cannot legally do that; and if we do not put in this Clause, it will be the chief item of Irish political controversy at every election in the near future. It will be a question of, Will you or will you not repeal the Treaty? And Mr. De Valera will say, "You have now the legal right to do it and it is only your moral sense of responsibility, which is really all wrong, that prevents you," because of the quotation that I have already referred to, in which he said that they were forced into signing the Treaty and did not do it as free men. Even from Mr. Cosgrave's point of view it would be very much better if this proposed Clause were included. I ask the Committee not to be
carried away by sentiment in this matter. Let us remember the assurances that were given by the right hon. Member, for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who was then in charge of the Bill in the House of Commons, to the minorities in Ireland, to Ulster, and to the people of Britain, the mother country. Surely it is something at which nobody should take offence if we put into this Statute, which, we understand, is to be the great charter in future of the British Dominions, a Clause saying that the undertakings and agreements of the Treaty which were entered into in 1921 still remain the law of the land of both countries, and that nothing in this Statute will affect them.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I did not intend to take any part in this Debate because unhappily the state of my health does not make it easy for me to undergo the strain of addressing the Committee; and therefore, not only for the sake of the Committee, but, for my own sake, I shall endeavour to make my observations as brief as they possibly can be. I want to make only a single point. It has been stated by the Secretary of State and by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) that President Cosgrave's letter makes it quite clear that the moral obligation of the Treaty remains whatever we decide in respect of this Bill tonight. So far as President Cosgrave and his colleagues go, that is of course quite true and unanswerable. The moral obligation of the Treaty, as far as they and the Irish Government in whose name they speak are concerned is undoubtedly still binding, whatever we do. It is said that we shall only weaken their hands if we put in this proposed new Clause. I am not quite in agreement with that argument, because I believe that it indicates a mistaken theory of Irish psychology. I do not believe, as a matter of fact, that those emotional considerations have anything like the weight in Ireland that they are supposed to have. The decisive body of Irish opinion, which is not always the great majority, really looks to what they conceive to be the national advantage, and that will in future, as in the past, be what will determine their action. I do not want to go into that, because it does not seem to me, either as a fact or as a basis of this Bill, to be any business of ours.
The whole idea of the Bill, whether it be a wise Bill or not, is that each part of the 13ritish Commonwealth of nations should be regarded as equal parts with each other of a common body, each managing their own affairs and only looking to their own affairs in the exercise of their autonomous power. I want to apply that to ourselves. We cannot be blind, however, to the fact that it is possible that moral obligations may he disregarded, because there are certainly politicians in Ireland who do not think that the Treaty is a moral obligation, and who would feel quite justified, and do not conceal their feelings, in breaking the Treaty. It then falls on us to consider what we should do. The Treaty is morally binding, as we conceive it, but, if this Bill passes in its present form, it will be possible to introduce by an Act of the Irish Parliament a vast and, it seems to me, a dangerous ambiguity into the legal position. I assume that we should take measures to enforce the Treaty as against the then Irish Government, but should we be legally justified in doing so if the Irish Parliament, acting in accordance with the Clauses of this Measure, had passed a Statute repealing the Treaty and, let us say, annexing the whole or large part of Northern Ireland? What would be our legal position? I believe that it would be a position of the utmost confusion. Immediately you came within reach of the jurisdiction of the Dominion, you would be in the position of persons who were acting unlawfully and in contravention of the law.
There still remains the theory, which cannot be abolished by this Statute, that there is only one thing which is legal throughout the British Commonwealth of Nations; and from the moment you had a conflict of law, such as I am supposing to arise, and you had the Irish Parliament enacting a law which in our view was an act of rebellion against the Commonwealth of Nations, and certainly a breach of faith, you would have two laws—the law which we obeyed in this country and the law which we were bound to obey immediately we and our soldiers or sailors crossed St. George's Channel. That is surely an unworkable position in which to put ourselves. We cannot be blind to the danger that, although this moral obligation is recognised in the most ex-
plicit form by the present Irish Government, it may be disregarded by a future Irish Government; and, if we try to enforce our just claims under the treaty, we might be faced with the absurd position that we should be acting in defiance of the common law of the British Empire. I protest against such a danger, and for that reason I shall support the proposed Clause, although I may not, on account of my health, be able to take part in the Division.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I want to speak for only a few minutes, but I have a great affection for Ireland as I was born there, and I want to see Ireland as happy as it can be, both in the north and the south. I have a further right to speak in that I happened to be serving in Ireland as a soldier during the Rebellion and during the period of the troubles from 1920 to 1922. I saw then the cruel destruction of all public feeling, especially among those who were loyal to Great Britain. That was of course, due to the weakness of the Coalition Government. I saw a friend of mine, Max Reid, a son-in-law of that great Irishman, John Redmond, murdered 10 yards away from me. I only saw the back of the murderer, and it was impossible to get one informer from the scores of people who saw the murder. That shows the utter elimination of public feeling at that time, and I only make this preliminary statement to show that it is essential that we should do nothing to destroy what little confidence there may he left towards Great Britain among the loyal population of Southern Ireland.
Since the Free State Government came into operation in 1922 things have gradually improved. There has been a resurgence of public opinion, based largely on the fact that Mr. Cosgrave has done so amazingly well and that he has gained every confidence in himself and his loyalty to his Treaty obligations, and also because the people of Southern Ireland realise that, even though they may be let down by their own Government through any change in Mr. Cosgrave's position, they still have at the back of them Great Britain and Great Britain's promise that any Irishman has a right of appeal to the Privy Council of Great Britain. That has been one of the
strongest levers in reintroducing a publicly-instructed opinion throughout the South of Ireland. At one time you could not get an informer to come forward and give evidence in regard to any crime he had seen, but, now that confidence has been restored, he will do so. Therefore it is more than ever necessary that we should develop that growth of confidence, and support it, by not introducing into the minds of the people of Southern Ireland any suggestion that they are in danger again, that they are likely to be again let down by the British Government, likely to be again thrown back into complete divorce from Great Britain and into whatever fluctuations of politics may ultimately develop in the Free State.
There is no doubt that Mr. Cosgrave wants this Measure to be passed as it stands. I do not blame him. Mr. Cosgrave has many difficulties, and chief amongst those difficulties is the point that he must be more extreme than the extremists, must satisfy the extreme point of view. He wants to stop the efforts of Mr. De Valera to capture the in-between opinion, the moderate opinion between the right and the left, and he can only do that by getting this Measure passed. Otherwise, Mr. De Valera will still have the breaking of the Treaty as the golden object to hold in front of the people of Ireland in the next election. If the Statute goes through in its present form Mr. Cosgrave will undoubtedly be strengthened, but what is going to be the position then? The only programme which Mr. De Valera will have will be the implementing of the Statute, and a barricade will be removed straight away between the peace that at present exists and what may exist in the future.
If the Statute is passed, then Mr. De Valera will go to the country and say, "Now that we have statutory rights with Great Britain, my programme is to implement those rights and to break the Treaty." Of course, that will be a tremendous attraction to a lot of young men, idealistic and nationalistic spirited young men, who have—some of them—nothing else to do; but I do not believe it will appeal—and I want to say this, since Mr. Cosgrave is watching this Debate—to the farmer and to the manufacturer. The farmer in Ireland is far more concerned with the prices he is going to get for his butter, milk and eggs than with whether this Statute of West-
minster is passed or not; I doubt whether he even knows that it is in existence. As for the manufacturer, he is tar more concerned about getting payment for the goods he supplies to the farmer. So the real people of Ireland—because the manufacturers and the farmers are 95 per cent. of the population of Southern Ire- land—are solely interested, not in this Statute, not in the cutting away of the final link with Great Britain, but in getting an assurance that their economic situation is improved, and they know that under a De Valera administration, especially if this link is broken, that the economic situation will not be improved.
8.30 p.m.
Supposing the Statute is passed in its present form and the last link is broken and Mr. De Valera comes into power— as he may well do, because there is a very fluctuating vote there at this moment— then what is to be the British Government's attitude in the matter of keeping the Treaty conditions alive? One method of dealing with the situation would be to keep the cattle out and the coal in; in other words, to apply economic pressure. If you kept the cattle of the Irish Free State from coming into Great Britain, and the coal of Great Britain from going into the Irish Free State, in three days' time you would have a complete economic blockade, and—

Mr. BOOTHBY: Suppose that were to happen, does the hon. and gallant Member think the Free State Government would then be legally entitled by statute to violate the Treaty of 1922?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: No, I do not think it would, but what I was trying to point out was this, that while we might use such economic pressure to force the Free State Government—under Mr. De Valera, of course—back into a more amenable frame of mind, that it is a policy which would cut both ways. While it would hurt our own friends in the Free State, it would also hurt ourselves, so obviously it would not be one to be used as a means of overcoming the new conditions which would be in existence.
Therefore I come back to this belief that it would be better in the interests of Mr. Cosgrave himself, and certainly better in our own interests and in the interests of the bulk of the Irish people, to maintain the existing position and accept this Amendment. I do not believe
it would be for the good of the Irish people to have this Measure passed as it stands. If I thought the bulk of the people of the Irish Free State were in favour of this Measure as it stands I would vote for it willingly, but I do not believe that is their wish—it is merely engendered fear by Mr. Cosgrave that he must spike the guns of his enemy and secure the position which Mr. De Valera otherwise might hold, and that is, the domination of all sections of political opinion in the Irish Free State. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, and previously I have spoken in favour of a postponement of this vital question, and I suggest that now, even at this late stage, he might consider having further conversations with Mr. Cosgrave to find out whether he could take a referendum of the people. If that were possible it would be shown clearly to Mr. Cosgrave and this country that the Measure in its present form is not required.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I had a full opportunity on Friday of stating the misgivings, and, indeed, the objections, which I personally entertain to this Measure in its present unamended form, and as I listened this Afternoon, first of all to the long and discursive Debate upon various constitutional points, and, secondly, to the Debate on this Amendment, I am bound to say that my opposition to the Bill was not in any way mitigated. I shall not repeat the arguments which I submitted to the House last week, but as I listened to the speech of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs I could not help feeling that it put the case on a false and disproportioned basis. We see defects in the Statute. We wish that its legal form and shape could have been more in harmony with the traditions, at least, of the British Constitution, but we are committed to the Statute and we do not see how in this House and at this time we have the power to re-shape that Statute in detail.
If only this Measure had been committed to a Joint Committee of both Houses, on which the great lawyers of the House of Lords, whose names and legal authority are respected in all the Dominions, could in perfect frankness and sincerity have examined this matter, and smoothed off the unfortunate terms of phrase and of provisions which are in it,
I am certain it would have been possible to present this matter again to the Dominions—there being no hurry for it—and to obtain from them some reconsideration of certain points. While we show every respect and attention to the wishes and views of the Dominions, and are always anxious to defer to their desires, still, the Mother Country must sometimes have a wish or point of view of its own, and I cannot believe that that wish, that point of view, when strongly and reasonably felt, might not be accepted in the family circle of the British Empire or, if you are afraid of the word "Empire," as you seem to be, in the family circle of the British Commonwealth of Nations—with at least as much good will as we have shown towards the wishes which the Dominions have expressed to us. So much for the present Statute.
The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs argued as if those who had expressed misgivings about these proposals were opposed to the resolutions of 1926 out of which this Statute has been born. That is not the position. There has been no attack on the main principles of the Bill, and there has been no opposition to the Statute as a whole. There is only one important point of principle at issue at the present time, and that is whether the Statute of Westminster should include a saving Clause for the Irish Treaty Act. That is the sole question before us. The Secretary of State made an impassioned speech, which seemed to imply that the relations between Great Britain and Ireland, now so much improved, would be fatally thrown back if we were to insert in the text of the Bill the words which have been proposed by my right hon. and gallant Friend. I do not think that it is an unjustified demand that we should insert those words. What has astonished me is that the Government have never disputed the principle that Clause 2 of the Statute gives legal power to the Irish Parliament to repeal the application to Ireland of the Irish Free State Act of 1922. I imagined that we should hear this disputed by legal authorities. We have heard other legal authorities on the subject, but it has not been disnuted by the Government. If, for instance, the Solicitor-General had said, "Your fears are groundless, and
nothing in this Act will give power to repeal the Act on which the Treaty rests," then I should have said, "We are friends, because, if our objects are the same, you cannot object to words being inserted which secure your purpose and ours as well."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I did not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he has made a statement which I desire to say is not quite in accordance with the facts. The right hon. Gentleman says that no dispute has been raised as to the unqualified power, if this Bill is passed, of the Irish Free State to abrogate or to abolish the Treaty. That was certainly challenged in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Somervell), and I repeated that challenge in my speech, and said that in my humble judgment the Constitution could not be amended, having regard to Article 50 of the Treaty, except in accordance with the Treaty.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I fully apprehend the very important statement which the Solicitor-General has just made. Apparently, there is a doubt as to whether this Act does or does not give power to repeal the Treaty. The Solicitor-General reassures the House that, in his opinion, it gives no such power. On the other hand, we have had legal authorities expressing an opinion to the contrary. If the Government think that the Act will not throw any strain upon the Trish Free State, and we hope so too, why cannot we be united in inserting words which put this matter beyond doubt. If it he true that this Statute invalidates the Treaty Act, and the supporters of the Bill hope that it will not do so, let us make our hopes secure by putting in the simple words which my right hon. and gallant Friend seeks to introduce in the Bill.
I listened with great attention to the letter from President Cosgrave which was read in order to influence our decision. I have great admiration for President Cosgrave, and I know how faithfully he has stood by all the obligations entered into by his late colleagues who were signatories of the Treaty, and I have known this for many years. I do feel, however, that this is a matter which ought not to be decided upon personal assurances by individuals. We have to
consider what should be the settled legal foundation to put our Constitution right. President Cosgrave is the most long-lived Prime Minister of any of the Dominions, but to say that the Irish Free State Government is the most stable of Dominion Governments is to ignore the fact that the Irish Government have been forced to adopt extreme powers unknown to ordinary law, and almost amounting to martial law, in order to protect he people against lawless acts of terrorism and outrage. The Government in Ireland, which is now ruling the country by exceptional legislation far exceeding the drastic powers of any Coercion Act passed by this House, is possessed of a majority varying between three or four, and which has sometimes risen to five or six. A general election is approaching in Ireland, and I cannot feel that we shall be held up to reproach and censure in this House because we are insisting on our rights and upon our legal claims. Having received an assurance from President Cosgrave which does him honour, and which I am sure he would make good with his last drop of blood, I ask why the insertion of the words of this Amendment is held to be derogatory to us.
We may consider ourselves bound, as far as possible, by the Treaty Act. When the Treaty was passing through this House I said that we had no right to sanction the conditions of that Treaty. An hon. Member has mentioned Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, and every one of those Dominions have insisted upon having the Foundation Act made immune from the new powers of repeal which are accorded by this Statute. Some hon. Members say what about South Africa? The Solicitor-General, in his speech on Friday, made a great point of South Africa. When I came to study the matter more at leisure than was possible in the course of that Debate, I was very much shocked to see how hurriedly the hon. and learned Gentleman must have had to get up his brief on this question. He said, referring to what I had said:
If the Treaty or the Constitution of the Irish Free State is, against her expressed wish, to be put into this Bill, a similar course will presumably have to be taken with regard to the Constitution of South Africa, and I do not know whether my right hon. Friend "—
that is me—
would think it was consistent with the dignity of that Dominion, which he did so much to set on its way, to put into this Bill a provision that its Constitution shall not be broken and its entrenchment Clauses shall not be repealed contrary to every good faith and sense of honour …"—OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1931; col. 1247, Vol. 259.]
His argument is that to put this saving for the Irish Treaty into the Statute of Westminster in respect of Ireland would be derogatory to Ireland, and a great reflection upon Ireland which we should not care to see the Dominions Secretary apply to South Africa. I will read the Resolution which the South African Parliament passed after considering the provisions of this very Statute of Westminster Bill:
That, on the understanding that the proposed legislation will in no way derogate from the entrenched provisions of the South Africa Act, this House, having taken cognisance of the draft Clauses;and recitals which it was proposed by the Imperial Conference of 1930 should "—
and so on. Here, therefore, is South Africa itself by resolution approving of the insertion of the very same provision that we ask should now be inserted in respect of the Irish Treaty. The Irish Treaty finds no counterpart in the relations between us and any of our Dominions. It is at once more recent, more tragical and more solemn than any other instrument that exists, going even as far back as the Articles of the Treaty of Vereeniging. But this Irish Treaty, may at no distant date become a matter of grave, real, practical politics. Suppose that a change of Government should occur in Ireland, you will be immediately confronted with a very grave crisis on this Treaty, and will be held responsible if you weaken in any way the moral —and in the moral I include the legal—rights of this country to defend the Treaty. We are in such a pusillanimous mood, apparently, that it almost has to be made a matter of apology, almost regarded as an act of impropriety, for any British representative to put forward modestly and politely, with studious and calculated courtesy, claims which are indefeasible in law. This Irish Treaty represented only what could be saved from the wrecks of great Imperial authorities, but, such as they were, they were of the greatest value, and they were fought for in the controversies between
the two countries. We ask that the same saving shall be given with regard to this Treaty as is given in this Measure to every other one of the Dominions in respect of their fundamental laws, and which South Africa itself sought in its resolution to impose upon itself.
I am not going to keep the Committee any longer. The right hon. Gentleman is about to address us, and we must listen with the very greatest respect to all that he says, not only because I know it will be heartfelt and sincere, and will aim at helping the House out of its difficulties and offering to it assurance and comfort, but also because my right hon. Friend is the lord of legions. If Providence is on the side of the big battalions, he, no doubt, has the Divine blessing resting upon him to-night. Not only has he this magnificent majority with which the nation has provided him on this occasion, but he will also have the assistance, should this matter go to a Division, of the defeated army. The Socialists will be able to march into line, and the Dominions Secretary and the Prime Minister will be able to make that reunion to which they assure us they are looking forward. I say to them, "You will have your way, and you will have the responsibility. We have found it to be our duty to protest. We have made our protest. We are satisfied, after all that has been said in this Debate, that, in asking that this safeguard and provision should be inserted in the Statute, we have done no unworthy thing."

Mr. DEVLIN: I do not think that, during an experience of 30 years in this House, I have ever witnessed so extraordinary an exhibition as I have just seen. Nor have I ever listened to a more mischievous speech than that of the right hon. Gentleman. He concluded his speech with an attack on his Leader. Since this new National Parliament was elected, the right hon. Gentleman has made many interventions into our Debates. I would like to ask him what precisely is his position in the public life of England; whom does he represent; what principles does he hold; and who is his Leader? [Hon. MEMBERS: "Who is yours?"] I am my own leader, and I differ from the right hon. Gentleman in this, that I am probably a solitary Member in this House, because I have
never departed from my principles. The right hon. Gentleman has had a varied career. No one in this House has a more profound personal regard for him than I have; no one listens to him with such intellectual delight as I do; I think that this House and the public life of this country are enriched by the magnificent talents which he possesses. But, if there is one thing that I could never conceive myself doing in any circumstances, it is following the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman. I came into this House 30 years ago. The right hon. Gentleman was then a Unionist. He was not only a Unionist, but he was a Free Trader. I was very young and very unenlightened, but I was modest enough to hope that I might be like him. I sat at his feet and listened to his magnificent speeches on behalf of Free Trade. Because he became a Free Trader, he transferred himself to these benches. He was a Unionist, and he became a Home Ruler. He joined the Coalition Cabinet, and he remained in that Cabinet and, as a Coalitionist Minister, he carried the Treaty. I do not know precisely where he stands to-day, what are his principles, or—

Mr. CHURCHILL: I stand for the enforcement of the Treaty.

Mr. DEVLIN: We shall see. The right hon. Gentleman insults Ireland by this suggestion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Will he give me a single instance where, in any arrangement between Ireland and this country, Ireland has ever broken its word? I remember the time when Mr. John Redmond was denounced in this House and out of it as badly as you are denouncing Mr. De Valera. Mr. John Redmond gave you his word of honour that, if you conceded the constitutional principle which you afterwards incorporated in your Treaty, of the right of Ireland to govern itself, Ireland would become a loyal member of this Empire. You sold the living and now you want to betray the dead. Mr. Redmond went to his grave because he was an honourable friend of this country. When the great Imperial emergency arose, and when an appeal was made to the whole world, and to all the English-speaking parts of the world, to rally to this country in her time of Imperial danger, Mr. Redmond suffered the unpopularity
which drove him to his grave by taking your side. I am about the last survivor of that movement. I was also one of those men who helped you in the War. We were absolutely betrayed, and the result of that betrayal was to produce such a condition of things in Ireland that your name became a by-word during those fateful years. Those who entered into this contract with these men—

Mr. CHURCHILL: Whom do you mean?

Mr. DEVLIN: The right hon. Gentleman with others. He admits that he was one of the chief architects of that structure called the Treaty, which we are discussing to-night. He defended it in the House. I believe some of the most eloquent speeches that he made were in favour of this Treaty. He was sincerely anxious to carry it out. That I will admit. Then, when it becomes an operative weapon in the hands of Ireland and in the hands of England, when an occasion of this character presents itself, he desires to insult Ireland by saying, "Although we gave you a constitution equal to the constitution of Canada, we will now make reservations and say, that while that was the Treaty that was accepted, a Treaty based upon Dominion Home Rule such as Canada possesses, yet later on we shall see that, when we say to Canada and to South Africa and to Australia that you are to be in the full enjoyment of domestic home rule and that this Westminster Statute, which is, as I understand it, a Statute which is to-day being legalised by Parliamentary sanction to carry out the will not of Ireland but the will of the Imperial council, not only constituted of representatives of Australia and Canada and Africa and the Free State but of this country as well—although that Imperial Conference on which Ireland was represented agreed to this provision that was to be made a Statute of this House, we will put a special Clause in to say, "All except Ireland."

HON. MEMBERS: ; No!

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is the other way round—exactly the opposite.

Mr. DEVLIN: That is what you want to put into it. That is my reading of the proposed Clause that has been discussed
here to-night.[Interruption.]Then what is it you want?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We want exactly the same kind of, provision in the case of the Irish Treaty as has been inserted to save the fundamental status of the other great Dominions.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. DEVLIN: At Canada's request. At all events, as I visualise it, you are going to pass this Statute of Westminster and, concurrently with its passing, you are going to insult Ireland. You are going to say you will not trust Ireland, although I have challenged the right hon. Gentleman now for the third time to give us one solitary instance where any compact, arrangement or compromise was arrived at between this country and Ireland and Ireland has ever broken that arrangement or has been false to that compromise.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Did not de Valera break the Treaty?

Mr. DEVLIN: Go and ask de Valera. You know him better than I do. I am not speaking for Mr. Cosgrave. I am speaking as an Irish representative returned here to express my own opinions, and I am here to express those opinions. What is the cause of this Debate? It is that there still remains in this country a most mischievous and dangerous element that seems to live and thrive upon the creation and the fostering of bitter passions between the two races. From whom did we first hear the sound of battle? From Lord Carson. He has been the most mischievous influence in the public life of these islands during the last 30 years. When you talk about de Valera, remember your own rebels. Who taught de Valera? I did not invite this controversy, but, if you want a controversy, you are going to have that controversy. He started the first rebellion. Out of that rebellion sprang the Irish rebellion. The spirit that was created in Ireland wafted itself to Egypt and to India. The architects of this movement were the inspiring agents of all the mischief which has brought misery on the whole world during the past few years.
Here in this House now Lord Carson once again is responsible for the creation of that spirit which has been expressed
so bitterly in the speeches that have been delivered here to-night—not only Lord Carson, but those who have carried on the Debate, who are his comrades. They are all diehards. I have watched them in all the controversies and all the Debates in the House for the last 30 years. They are there, bitterly hating Ireland, endeavouring, when they cannot beat her, to humiliate her, to put indignities on the nation which is keeping its word. That is the purpose of this Amendment and no other, and it is because I feel, as an Irishman, that that;is the main and only purpose of the Amendment that I am here to oppose it. I know that my speech to-night will probably prevent many of the Conservative party from voting with the Government who would do so if I did not make this speech. [An HON. MEMBER: "Quite so!"] Very well, you can vote as you please. But my business here is to speak the truth as I understand it. If I have misrepresented the situation, there are plenty of silent Members, especially those who have not yet made their maiden speeches, who will have an opportunity of traversing the statements I have made.
Take the other point—the chief point that I wanted to make when I rose. I have heard a great deal here to-night about the interests of the minorities of Ireland. We have heard a great deal about minorities. This is a House of Commons which knows little about Ireland. I have never known a House of Commons in my life that knew anything about Ireland. May I tell the Horse that a more disgraceful betrayal of a minority has never been known than the betrayal of the minority for whom I speak in this House? They want to save the minority in Southern Ireland from the majority of their countrymen. When the Free State Constitution was put into operation, one-half of the Senators in Southern Ireland created by the Free State Government belonged to the minority. There were nine judges of the High Court in Southern Ireland and five of them belonged to the minority. The largest number of chief civil servants in Southern Ireland belonged to the minority class. There never was a case where a minority was so magnanimously treated as the minority was treated in Southern Ireland. In fact, a
great many people in Southern Ireland believe, and have said; it on the platform, that the Free State, is now dominated by those who are known as the minority in Southern Ireland. Generosity, toleration, concession, every spirit of good will that can be manifested has been shown towards the minority.
The minority—and I give them credit for it—recognise the justice and the magnanimity that has been shown to them. Protestant ministers, Protestant bishops, leading public men in every branch of public activity, commercial, industrial and professional, have got there by the warm and generous toleration of the Free State Government towards that minority who are to be protected, according to the right hon. Gentleman here tonight. They have not asked you to interfere. They do not ask you to come here to be their defenders. They are quite satisfied to accept these proposals without any amendment whatever. Why should they be mentioned at all. There is another minority, and they are the minority for whom I speak. And since you have introduced minorities' and have made this House to-night the platform for the degradation of Ireland- —[Interruption]—yes, that is what it is—I want to tell you something about minorities. Under a Government created by you in Northern Ireland—half the Senators in Southern Ireland are Protestant there is not a single Catholic in. Northern Ireland appointed as Senator.

Sir JOSEPH McCONNELL: On a point of Order. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must understand that asking a question of an hon. Member who is speaking, is not a point of Order.

Mr. DEVLIN: I want to hear the hon. Member's question.

Sir J. McCONNELL: The hon. Gentleman says that they did not get sufficient Senators in Northern Ireland at the commencement of the Northern Government. Is it not a fact that he was a quitter and that he kept away from Northern Ireland and ignored the Northern Government altogether?

Mr. DEVLIN: The judges were not all away, the magistrates were not all away, and the civil servants were not all away. I must remind my hon. Friend that he is not now in Northern Ireland, but in this Parliament. Mark you this, the minority in Southern Ireland constitute 7 per cent. of the population and they get five judges out of nine, and they have all the higher places—Civil Service and official. They have received every possible advantage that any party could have with 7 per cent. of the population. We in Northern Ireland have 33⅓ per cent. of the population, but not one of our people was appointed to the Senate; and of the judges, we had not one.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: What about the late Lord Chief Justice?

The CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member is getting a little far away from the Clause.

Mr. DEVLIN: This is one of the few opportunities that have been presented to us, because as long as you kept your word and as long as you kept the House free from the passions and controversies of Irish affairs and were willing to honour your bond and leave Ireland—even [...]adly treated as part of it is—alone, I had no desire to interfere. But when you make this House the arena for the discussion of Irish affairs, I decline to be silenced, and I refuse to be denied my right to state my aspect of this question. As I said, there was not a single representative of the minority in the Senate. Why does the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for this Treaty, raise his voice on behalf of the minority? Why did he not raise his voice in favour of giving 33⅓ per cent. of the population in Northern Ireland even a tithe of representation in the Senate? After all, the respect for law and justice is determined by the purity and the freedom of the courts of justice, free from political partisanship. We have not a single Catholic judge. You gave proportional representation as a guarantee that the minority would have fair representation. That proportional representation was abolished. One would not mind it being abolished, but what did they proceed to do? They proceeded so to jerrymander the constituencies that I am returned in the Northern Parliament with 60,000 votes and one of my Unionist
colleagues in an adjoining constituency is returned with 20,000 votes. [Interruption.] Now listen to me. You are all new Members of this House. This may be a pleasant experience for you at the commencement of this Parliament, but before you are long in this House, not on the issue of Ireland but on many other issues, you will find much more unpleasant experiences than the experience of listening to me. If you take the case of the schools—

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to remember that he must at least confine his remarks to the question of the application of the Free State Treaty as mentioned in the new Clause now before the Committee.

Mr. DEVLIN: May I point out that one of the most cogent arguments—if any of their arguments were cogent—put forward by the protagonists here on this side and on that show that they were anxious to secure that the minority rights should be safeguarded. That was one of the arguments advanced. I can see the hypocrisy of the whole transaction. This question might have been raised constantly since I came into the House, but I have remained silent and preferred to be one of the bondage minority to remain silent rather than to embarrass this country or to raise controversies that would embitter feelings and passions over the Irish question. But they have created this opportunity—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and I am taking advantage of it.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not take advantage of it too far. He must not devote this part of his speech to elaborating questions with regard to a minority in a State which is not concerned with the Clause now before the Committee.

Mr. DEVLIN: With all respect, it is concerned with this matter, because the argument put forward, not once, but twenty times in the Debate, was that they are anxious to preserve their minority rights and to see that the minority shall not be subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of the Free State. That was their argument. I want to put it to you, and to the Committee, and I claim that right, that never was there a greater piece of insolence, impudence or misrepresentation than for them to come here and talk
about the minority of 7 per cent. in the South of Ireland, which enjoys every privilege of the majority, and then to plead and whine about their minority rights where they have a majority and they treat 33½ per cent. of the population in the manner that I have described. I thank you very much for allowing me to go so far.
I come now to the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks), who has taken such a prominent part in the Debate. He suggested that this question ought to have been delegated to a qualified body of legal experts. That was a curiously cynical commentary upon the legal experts who were present at the Imperial Conference. I do not know anything about the Imperial Conference, but I take it that so long as it was guided by a wise man like the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, when he went into the Imperial Conference he would see that the interests of this country were efficiently defended by the best legal power that he could secure. I take it also that the legal representatives from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada were lawyers of considerable eminence, certainly as eminent as any that would be selected by the hon. Member for Eastbourne. I read a statement in the "Times" the other day. If I made no speech at all, the two branches of this subject have been dealt with by the "Times" in an infinitely more effective manner than I could deal with them, first upon the merits of the question and, secondly, upon its legal aspect. The "Times" says:
If there is no enthusiasm for the Statute, there is, and there need be, no apprehension as to the practical effect of such a document on the unity of the Empire. The old unity, based on the Supremacy of the Government and Parliament in Great Britain is already a thing of the past. The new unity towards which the Empire is striving is a unity which is based on free and equal co-operation. Such co-operation will he made not more difficult but easier by clearing away the last vestiges of inequality.
Then they come to the legal aspect and I commend what they say to the hon. Member for Eastbourne:
At the Royal Empire Society last week Lord Hailsham"—
I wonder if the hon. Member has ever heard of Lord Hailsham? I never knew Lord Hailsham personally. I was not a Member of this House while he was in it, but I understand he is a man of commanding Parliamentary ability, who skilfully directed the affairs of the Tory party at the time that the Tory party was trying to upset the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. As a reward for his brilliant services in defending the flag at the moment of its danger he was sent to the House of Lords, and became Lord Chancellor. Therefore, whether the hon. Member for Eastbourne knows him or not, I take it that that which inspires the hon. Member in the Parliamentary affairs of this House is largely due to the stepfatherly, parental care with which Lord Hailsham has guided him. Here is what the "Times" said:
 the Royal Empire Society last week Lord Hailsham agreed with Mr. Bruce that the enactment of the Statute was not likely to make any real difference, but he did not think it was equally true to say that its rejection would make no real difference. The Balfour Declaration, he said, had done a great deal to wipe away misgivings and to establish confidence, especially in the newer Dominions, and, as the Statute of Westminster was regarded by them as the legal expression of that declaration its rejection by the British Legislature might revive all the old suspicions.
That is what I say. That is what your leaders said and that is what Lord Hail-sham's stepson ought to agree with.
That seems to sum up the common sense of the matter. There can be no doubt that it would be disastrous to run any risk of reviving those suspicions, especially at a moment when the great need of the Empire is to secure common action to meet the economic difficulties from which all its members are suffering.
Therefore, we have it from the "Times" that the policy that is being pursued by the Government in relation to this matter is the only effective policy, and it commands the approval and support of the leading organ of Conservatism. We have it from Lord Hailsham, a, lawyer of eminence, an ex-Lord Chancellor, a Member of the present Government, the Secretary of State for War. He has covered the whole ground from a seat on the Woolsack to a seat in the War Office; he knows everything and, therefore, is capable of giving direction and guidance. He does not change his opinions, like the right hon. Member for
Epping, but remains faithful to the Tory party. What other lawyers' opinion does the hon. Member for Eastbourne want, when he has the opinion of the ex-Lord Chancellor, a present Leader of the Tory party, a man whose gifts of eminence are recognised by all parties? The "Times" and Lord Hailsham are agreed not only on the wisdom of this Measure but on the unwisdom of inserting into it such a provision of suspicion as that which has been suggested in the Amendment before the House, and supported by the right hon. Member for Epping. For these reasons the House would be well advised to support the Government in this matter.
It is well known that I am not a supporter of the present Government, but I will vote for them on this occasion. I will always vote for them when they are right. I have never had very strong economic convictions. To me Free Trade and Protection were never anything more than changing aspects of our economic and industrial life. I am prepared to give a vote as an independent Member upon any question that presents itself to me as one of value to the nation, but when an occasion of this character arises, I see the evil, mischievous spirit existing among ancient politicians who for 40 years have never forgotten anything and never learned anything. If you go back to the time when Gladstone first introduced his Home Rule Bill, he proposed a Measure that would have satisfied the aspirations of the Irish people and would have relieved this country of all the bitterness and hatreds that have been impregnated in the poisoned public life of the country, and have caused hatred of this country among many people who would be friendly to it. When I think of the 40 years that were lost which might have been given to legislation for the benefit of this country and the welfare of its people, when I think that probably if Home Rule had been granted then there would never have been any war, I still claim that the roots of all this mischievous growth all over Europe commenced with the spirit of rebellion which permeated a party in this country and spread and spread into every part of the world.
Those of us who hold that view and who supported Gladstone's policy are still anxious to see good relations between this country and Ireland. Anything to
insult Ireland, to belittle her Constitution, to rob her of any of her privileges will undoubtedly create discord there and mutual hatred between the two peoples. I speak as I do, although I have never been very enthusiastic about this treaty. I stood for a united Ireland, an Ireland of one Parliament. I believe that that would have been the real and genuine solution of that question. Lister to-day would have been happier, economically sounder, and more commercially stable it that had happened. But that was not the way it happened. The English statesmen decided to divide the country and, since the country is divided, I can have no great love for the treaty. I stand here to speak for those who supported it because they spoke for Ireland at the time. They did more than speak for Ireland. They took their lives in their hands to put this treaty through. Some of them lost their lives and nearly everyone has made great sacrifices for the mutual relations between the two countries. To tell these men that they are not to be trusted and that the nation that trusts them is not to be trusted is the negation of all magnanimous treatment by one nation to another. Therefore, as I say, we shall vote on this occasion for the Government.

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The moment is opportune for intervening with a few words before we pass from this Amendment. I regret very much that a longstanding engagement in Yorkshire prevented my being here on Friday, but I must confess that I did what I rarely do. I read every word of Friday's Debate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There are advantages in reading great orations in cold print. It is like watching a slow motion picture of a conjurer. I read through the Debate because much of the discussion on Friday was germane to the subject of this Amendment. I have been very much struck by how to-day there have been, as it were, atavistic impulses urging the House on and we have been reminded of old unhappy things of long ago. There is a, tendency, in concentrating on Ireland, to lose sight of the fundamental question here, which is the question of Imperial relationship, a vastly more important one and pregnant as regards the
future. I wish to bring the House back to that and to explain why in my view I cannot support this Amendment, although there are the names of many old friends of mine to it, many of them friends of long years standing. We do differ honestly and conscientiously on this matter. I wish to give my reasons for I have listened with patience to all that they have had to say.
9.30 p.m.
Very likely a number of Members newer to the House have not realised some of our political history in the last half dozen years. One speaker in the Debate spoke as though this question of status among the Dominions had merely been taken up because we had denied them an opportunity of discussing fiscal questions. I do not entirely agree with that. There is no doubt that one of the results of the War, as I have often said in this House, was to speed up the political development of many countries, and it speeded up enormously the political development and consciousness of every Dominion in the Empire. So it was that, in those early years after the War, those great nations of the Empire, fully conscious—and we ought to sympathise with them—of what they had done in the War, were most anxious to discuss from every angle with the Mother Country the question of status and to get formal acknowledgment of the position which they had reached by the normal process, although speeded up, of political development. That was the attitude of the 1926 Conference.
I am quite sure that when many of my colleagues at the time saw the result of the discussions, when they saw that brilliant report of Lord Balfour, it brought them up with a shock to realise how things had changed from the Empire that we knew when we were young. We suddenly realised that the other nations of the Empire were grown up; they were for all practical purposes independent. The days of tutelage were over. We entered into a new relationship. When I was trying in 1929 or 1930 to get more clearly this condition into words, I regretted the necessity—we all did—but it had to be done. It may be that, if a Government with another complexion had been in office, some
things might have been done a little differently. I do not know; the opportunity did not arise. But what was done was done by a British Government, and we cannot go back on what has been done by a British Government.
I think it right to preface my observations with those remarks and I wish to examine this Amendment, first, as to whether the Amendment will accomplish what its spokesmen desire, and, secondly, whether, if it does accomplish that or not, it is wise or right of this country to insist on the insertion of those words in this particular Act of Parliament. In my own view, the words are futile to effect what their authors desire, and, so far as the wisdom of putting those words in is concerned, I believe that, if we insisted upon it, it would be disastrous to the whole Empire. I will say a word or two about that. Many Members in the House now will have heard the intervention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip). I am not surprised that there are differences between constitutional lawyers as to the exact effect of this legislation as regards the power to interfere with existing Treaties. I am advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that the binding character of the Articles of Agreement will not be altered by one jot or tittle by the passing of the Statute.
I have listened with the greatest care to all the speeches that have been made, and I recognise the quality of them. We have had two speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), by common consent the most powerful debater and greatest orator in this House. We had a speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), one of the most acute intellects in this House. Frankly, though I have tried my best to follow the advantages that they see in inserting these words, I cannot do it. My right hon. Friend, the Member for Oxford University, seems to think that it would make a great deal of difference, supposing there were what, in fact, would be a rebellion in Ireland, if that rebellion were illegal. [Interruption.] The whole Committee is in agreement in believing that the present. Irish Government will adhere with perfect faith and honour to the Treaty, but many hon.
Members seem to feel difficulties about what may happen, and they are very anxious that, if serious difficulties occur, they should be conducted on a legal basis. I can almost see my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) on the 30th January, 1649, paying a visit to Cromwell and saying to him: "Do you know that you have committed an illegal action?"
If the Treaty is to be repudiated in such a manner, there would be no question of Statute law. The repudiation would have to be dealt with otherwise. The sanctity of the Treaty, which has been acknowledged over and over again in the fullest and most generous sense by Irishmen—the great sanction of that Treaty, is that it is a Treaty. I speak as a layman. I do not know whether I am using the right words in law, but I do know what a Treaty is and the Irish Government knows what a Treaty is. That Treaty will be just as binding, so I am advised after the passing of this Statute as before. This also occurs to me: The Treaty has been scheduled to the Constitution by the Dail, sitting as a constituent assembly, and in it are contained provisions for the Amendment of the Constitution only within the terms of the scheduled Treaty. Thus, the Dail now can only legally modify the Constitution in conformity with the Treaty, which is actually embedded in the Irish Free State Constitution. I think this country has every security.
I come immediately from that to what I said at the beginning of this short speech of mine was the crux of the whole question. The crux is our imperial relationship. In 1926, in the report dealing with the operation of the Dominions legislation, it is placed on record that the constitutional practice is that legislation by the Parliament of Westminster, applied to a Dominion, would only be passed with the consent of the Dominion concerned. We gave Canadian status to Ireland, and we gave it freely. The Dominions have all been consulted throughout with regard to this legislation. Australia and Canada have, it is true, asked for special provisions to be inserted in the Bill. South Africa and Ireland have asked that such special provision should not be inserted, because they believe that all the protection that
is needed lies in their Constitution, and they both feel that any, I say "restrictive"—it will do for my purpose—Clause or Amendment in the Bill is a reflection on their good faith.
Now, this is what I want to say: We may think we are only dealing with Ireland in these matters. Let me remind the House—and anyone who has had work to do in the Imperial Conference since the War will know the truth of what I am saying. The Dominions are rightly and properly very jealous of their status and they are jealous of each other's status as regards the Mother Country, and if you think that you can do something which offends Ireland, and is only going to offend Ireland, you make the mistake of your lives. You are going to offend, not only the Irish Free State, but you are going to offend every Irishman in Australia, in Canada and in the United States of America. You will offend every. Dominion, even the most British of them, and none will feel it more than Canada, which is often held up to us as an example. I can think of nothing more fatal for this House to do, a Tory House of Commons, full of Tories, than to think, with Dominions that enjoy a state of economic equality based on Treaties, and a conference to be held this year in Ottawa, that by inserting these words against the will of the Dominions, and particularly trying to do it in regard to South Africa, they are helping that cause for which many of us have fought for a whole generation. Not a bit They will set it back far years. It is because of that and because of the Imperial side of it, because it may go out to the world that, for all our talk, we do not trust the Dominions, and that Dominion status means nothing to us, that I oppose this new Clause. I am not interested in a great part of the discussion that has taken place on it, because it really does not touch the big principle. The big principle is the thing. I do warn my hon. Friends that they may make a very grave mistake in the relationship of the whole of the Empire by accepting these words.
I would say one final word. I have said that many of my friends, and many of them very old friends, are supporting this new Clause. I would like to say that I recognise the sincerity of their views. I know that it is not done to be troublesome. It is done on the part of many
of them as a matter of conscience. I do not share it, but I respect it. I should expect to see them vote for their Clause, and I do not feel in any way that they are voting against the party or that they have got anything against me. They have a perfect right to do it. I ask those, for whom this is not a matter of conscience but largely of old-time association, to try to judge the matter from the larger point of view, and from the point of view of the whole Empire, to see that this new Clause is defeated by a substantial majority.

Mr. LANSBURY: I should not have attempted to intervene in this discussion except that we do not propose to give a perfectly silent vote on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to include a gibe about our numbers. Whether we are one, or whether we are 50, we have our individual and collective right to state our view. On this issue we shall go into the Lobby for the sole purpose of registering what has been the policy of the Labour party ever since it was a Labour party. We do not think that you can hold people together, either by bits of paper or by force. We think that you can only hold one country to another if the countries give consent. We think that the Irish people, being part of the Dominions, ought to be trusted and dealt with in exactly the same manner as any other Dominion. We do not take the view at all that the Irish people, as was once said, have a double dose of original sin.
I happen to have heard the Debates in this House on this subject for very many years. I have heard the Noble Lard the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) many times on the Irish question, and he has always been wrong. He conscientiously believes what he says, but he conscientiously believes the wrong thing. He does not believe in trusting other people. He does not believe that self-government should ever have been given to Ireland. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Evidently others think the same thing. Therefore to-night, by a side wind, they want in some way to treat Ireland in a derogatory fashion. We maintain that if you are to have a British commonwealth of nations every
partner in that commonwealth must be treated as an equal partner. Because of that and for no other reason we are going into the Lobby in support of the Bill, not at all because we like going in with the National Government—[Laughter.] Certainly, we hate and detest most of the things that the Government want to do and nearly everything that they have done. We shall go into the Lobby because we are part of the British House of Commons, and because we want to register our own view on this particular question.
Those who try to infer that we have not a right, or, because we are a small party, that we ought to stand on one side while others have their quarrel out about something that many of them do not understand, are making a very great mistake. We not only propose to vote on such questions as this, but we propose to take advantage of the rights we have as Members of saying why we do it; and the reason we are doing it to-night is not that we love the Front Bench, but because for once they are carrying out a piece of good Socialist policy, which is that if we have a commonwealth of nations it shall be a free partnership of nations, of people who are in that commonwealth because they want to be in it and not because they are forced into it.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: The House has listened very patiently to one Irishman, who has made an irrelevant speech, and I would ask indulgence for about five minutes in order to reply. I am very sorry that the hon. Member raised a great deal of the old bitterness that used to occupy the hours of the House to midnight and onwards. I want to refer to one part of his speech which, personally, I resented very much, that is to say, the words he used about one of the greatest Irishmen who ever stood in this House, Lord Carson. The hon. Member called Lord Carson's followers "rebels" I was one of them, and delighted to be one, and as a result I have no doubt whatever that I am as loyal a citizen of the British Empire as any Member of the House of Commons. Lord Carson is not here to defend himself. I am sure he does not wish that I should do so further than to say what I have said, that I was proud and always have been to call Lord Carson my leader. With regard to some of the remarks of
the Secretary of State for the Dominions, I have not so much to take exception to them as to complain of what was admitted from his speech. He has referred several times since Friday to the sacrifices of those who procured the Treaty, but never a sentence, never a word about the sacrifices of those who laid down their lives or were compelled to lay down their lives in the protection of the rights of the loyalists of Ireland in that horrible time. Never a word did the right hon. Gentleman say of what was done, those outrages, those murders—[Interruption.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): We are debating a very important Imperial point, and I trust that there will be no interruptions.

Mr. LOGAN: On a point of Order. If any hon. Gentleman makes allusions to things that are not historical may he not be contradicted? The hon. Gentleman has alluded to murders. I say I have a right to interrupt him.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No hon. Member has a right to interrupt. I would point out that interruptions do not add to the dignity of the Committee or of the Debate.

Sir W. ALLEN: I have not the slightest objection to interruptions of that character. I am only replying to what has already been stated or insinuated on several occasions by other speakers. I am not going to give a silent vote on this question without at least registering the opinion of myself and my friends, no matter whom it may please. The Secretary for the Dominions referred on several occasions to those who had sacrificed themselves. All I want to do is to put in a plea for others who also sacrificed much, who lost their homes, lost everything, lost their liberty; and that is what is going on in Southern Ireland to-day, and hon. Members opposite know it. The Secretary for the Dominions has left an impression on the House of the great unanimity of all the other Dominions connected with this matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The very preamble of the Bill talks about the delegates united in conference. And this great thing was evolved. Whom did the delegates represent? We do not know. We do know, from the speeches in New Zealand, Australia and Canada, that there was considerable opposition
to anything of the kind. Why then does the right hon. Gentleman come here and say that there was great unanimity and that it is the demand of the Dominions that this should be done? It is nothing of the kind and it is necessary only to read the speeches to find that that is so. Several have been very careful to exclude themselves practically from the operation of the Bill. Now, because someone here has decided that at least there will be some guarantee in Ireland that the Treaty which was given to Ireland shall be kept, of course we are told that this is all wrong.
When I was speaking in the House last week I said that I came here and was sent here as a supporter of the National Government. That is perfectly true. But I did not come here as a supporter of a National Government whose business it was to introduce Bills of this kind. On this point I am entirely free. To-night I shall vote against the Government. I do not call it a National Government as regards this question. I call it a Coalition Government. Unfortunately, we had a Coalition Government before and it was that Coalition Government which left this curse upon Ireland, because that is what has happened. The Free State Government recently had to enact a statute which, if this Parliament had enacted it, would have caused us to be howled down through all the ages. Now we have another Coalition Government, and they are giving Ireland away again. That is what it means. Undoubtedly they will live to see the day when that Treaty will be torn up, and that is why we want this Clause to be included as some guarantee to the people left in Ireland.
It is very difficult for an Irishman and a loyalist to speak patiently of the Unionist party—of the old Conservative party—in connection with what they have done in Ireland. I find it difficult to speak on the subject to-night. You are giving the show away again—that is what you are doing. You were not elected to do it. You were elected for a very different purpose—to save England from economic disaster—but here you are introducing a Measure which is entirely foreign to the business of this Parliament and you are going to push it through. The Secretary of State for the Dominions is sick of the whole thing. One can read
that in his speeches and one can also see that the heart of the Solicitor-General is not in his task to-night. He told us how this Bill was concocted with the most learned legal advice and opinion that could be obtained but I am sure we should find that there is advice just as learned and legal opinion just as high in opposition to this Statute.
10.0 p.m.
I think it is a disgrace that a Measure of this character should be brought before the House of Commons. As I say, this Coalition Government are going to give us away again. They often twit hon. Members opposite with running away, but no party in this House of Commons has ever run away with greater speed from those who would break and smash the Empire than a good many of the Members of the Conservative party. That is what they are doing to-night. They say that the Treaty is sacred but they are running away from the position. We are told that there is no harm in doing this, that it means nothing. Then why do it? You are doing it because Mr. Cosgrave says you must do it. I say that these people were your commanders before and they are your leaders now—that is the beginning and end of the whole thing. You do not want to displease your friends in Southern Ireland. That is the position of the great Conservative party. I certainly am going to record my vote in favour of the Amendment. Of course the great battalions of the Government will defeat it, but that will not prevent me from doing my duty.

Mr. LOGAN: I would not have attempted to address the Committee had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Member far Armagh (Sir W. Allen) which brought my memory back to the many unfortunate scenes witnessed in this House in other days when the spirit of rancour has been introduced. I suggest that the hon. Member's speech was most irrelevant and inopportune, and that on this night of all nights the past should not have been raked up and references such as he made should not have been made to past events in Irish history. This is 1931 and the question before the Committee is the question of the Statute of Westminster in which the faith and courage of British statesmanship is ex-
hibiting itself. I remember the days when these benches were graced by 86 of the finest men who ever breathed the breath of life and who spoke and fought in the cause of Ireland in this Parliament. It is because their spirit still lives to-day that I claim the right to enunciate my point of view and to express my appreciation of the statesmanship which is being exhibited in 1931 by a Government which recognises that the past is dead. Let the dead past bury its dead, and let this nation rise to the occasion, and by cementing unity safeguard those things which are essential if the British race is to be able to meet the competition which it will encounter in the near future.
I do not often agree with the Lord President of the Council, but I agree with him in the advice which he has given to those who have brought forward this Amendment. The disastrous past has gone, and great evil may be done by an Amendment of this description. The Committee will be well advised to follow the statesmanlike lead given by the Lord President of the Council. His words are words of warning. They are also words of wisdom which ought to be taken in particularly by the new Members who have come here to support the National Government. You are the custodians of everything that goes to make for the welfare of the nation. I do not intend to waste time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I ask hon. Members to observe that I was referring to my time and not to theirs.
I am very much impressed by the sagacity which the Lord President of the Council has shown in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] Even though I am one of the younger Members, I think I have a right to be heard on this matter. I come from a Division the representative of which has a right to speak on this problem. Lancashire and other parts of England, as well as Ireland, and as well as Canada, Australia and America, will certainly be affected by the vote given on this matter in this Committee. It is because I am anxious to see an end to the difficulties of the past, it is because I want to see the Irish race play its part as it ought to do, and to have its place in the sun, that I ask the Committee not to vote for this Amendment, and I hope
that hon. Members in building up the nation will realise the value of friendship in the republic which they are setting up.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 50; Noes, 360.

Division No. 19.]
AYES.
[10.5 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Greene, William P. C.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Atkinson, Cyril
Hartington, Marquess of
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Somerset, Thomas


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Knox, Sir Alfred
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Stewart, William J.


Bracken, Brendan
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n, S.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Templeton, William P.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Nail, Sir Joseph
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh



Davison, Sir William Henry
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Sir John Withers and Mr. Marjoribanks.


Donner, P. W.
Remer, John R.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Clarry, Reginald George
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Fuller, Captain A. E. G.


Albery, Irving James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Gibson, Charles Granville


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Colville, Major David John
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Allen, Maj. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd, W)
Conant, R. J. E.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir John


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cook, Thomas A.
Gledhill, Gilbert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cooke, James D.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Aske, Sir William Robert
Copeland, Ida
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Goldie, Noel B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cowan, D. M.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Craven-Ellie, William
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. B.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Graves, Marjorie


Balniel, Lord
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Farclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crossley, A. C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Grundy, Thomas W.


Beaumont, R. E. B. (Portsm'tb, Centr'l)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Curry, A. C.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Bernays, Robert
Daggar, George
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Betterton. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hales, Harold K.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Borodale, Viscount
Denman Hon. R. D.
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bossom, A. C.
Denville, Alfred
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Boulton, W. W.
Devlin, Joseph
Hamilton,Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Dickie, John P.
Hanbury, Cecil


Boyce, H. Leslie
Doran, Edward
Hanley, Dennis A.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Drewe, Cedric
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Briant, Frank
Duckworth, George A. V.
Harbord, Arthur


Briscoe, Richard George
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Harris, Percy A.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Duggan, Hubert John
Hartland, George A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Haslam, StJohn (Bolton)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Buchanan, George
Dunglass, Lord
Healy, Cahir


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Eady, George H.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Burghley, Lord
Eastwood, John Francis
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Eden, Robert Anthony
Hepworth, Joseph


Butler, Richard Austen
Edge, Sir William
Herbert, George (Rotherham)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hillman, Dr. George B.


Campbell, Rear-Adml, G (Burnley)
Edwards, Charles
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hirst, George Henry


Cape, Thnmas
Ellis, Robert Geoffrey
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Holdsworth, Herbert


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Elmley, Viscount
Hopkinson, Austin


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hornby, Frank


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Horobin, Ian M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Entwistle, Major Cyril Fullard
Horsbrugh, Florence


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Howard, Tom Forrest


Chotzner, Alfred James
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Christie, James Archibald
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Clarke, Frank
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Hurd, Percy A.
Martin, Thomas B.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Salmon, Major Isidore


Inskip, Sir Thomas W. H.
Maxton, James
Salt, Edward W.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John M.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Jamieson, Douglas
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Janner, Barnett
Mills, Sir Frederick
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Jenkins, Sir William
Milne, Charles
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Jennings, Roland
Milner, Major James
Savery, Samuel Servington


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tfd & Chisw'k)
Selley, Harry R.


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Mitcheson, G. G.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


John, William
Molson, A. Harold Elsdale
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Morgan, Robert H.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Ker, J. Campbell
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Smithers, Waldron


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Munro, Patrick
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Kimball, Lawrence
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Soper, Richard


Kirkwood, David
Nathan, Major H. L.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Knight, Holford
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
North, Captain Edward T.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Nunn, William
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
0' Donovan, Dr. William James
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Ormiston, Thomas
Stevenson, James


Lawson, John James
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Stones, James


Leckie, J. A.
Owen, Major Goronwy
Storey, Samuel


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Strauss, Edward A.


Lees-Jones, John
Parkinson, John Allen
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Leigh, Sir John
Patrick, Colin M.
Sutcliffe, Harold



Peake, Captain Osbert
Thorn, Lieut.-Colonel John Gibb


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Pearson, William G.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Leonard, William
Peat, Charles U.
Thomas, James P. L, (Hereford)


Levy, Thomas
Penny, Sir George
Thompson, Luke


Liddall, Walter S.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Petherick, M.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Llewellin, Major John J.
Pickering, Ernest H.
Tinker, John Joseph


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Pike, Cecil F.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Locker-Lampson. Rt. Hn. G. (wd. Gr'n)
Potter, John
Train, John


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Logan, David Gilbert
Price, Gabriel
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Mabane, William
Pybus, Percy John
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


MacAndrew. Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ramsbotham, Herswald
Weymouth, Viscount


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Ramsden, E.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Rankin, Robert
Whyte, Jardine Bell


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


McEntee, Valentine L.
Rea, Walter Russell
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


McEwen, J. H. F.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


McGovern, John
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


McKeag, William
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


McKie, John Hamilton
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wood, Major M. McKenzie (Banff)


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


McLean, Major Alan
Ropner, Colonel L.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.



McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Magnay, Thomas
Runqe, Norah Cecil
Mr. Shakespeare and Mr. Womersley.


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)



Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)



Resolution agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Succession to the throne and the royal titles.)

"It shall not be lawful for any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne or the Royal style and titles to be made without the consent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Parliaments of all the Dominions."—[Mr. Atkinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. ATKINSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The complaint which some of us have against this Bill is its want of courage in putting its provisions into clear language. We have just had one example in connection with the last proposed new Clause. No one intends or wishes to impair the legal basis of the Treaty; yet the Bill dare not say so, and here we have
another example. The position of the Crown in connection with this Bill is obviously one of vital importance, and yet it is only dealt with in the Preamble, and there is nothing about it in the enacting part of the Bill. I want to point out a contrast. There are two recitals of importance in the Preamble. The second is
And whereas it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made my the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion.
That finds its place in Clause 4, where it is enacted in precisely similar language. The first recital, which is of far greater importance, deals with the position of the Crown. Again, we have the same curious language that
it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
That recital finds no place in the Bill, and I and the other hon. Members whose names are attached to this Amendment raise this point because we want an explanation. It is a matter of great importance, and if it is meant to be part and parcel of the constitutional law of the Empire, we want to know why it is not so stated in clear and definite language. Why is there not a Clause definitely making that the law, as has been done in the case of the other recitals? It may be said that the preamble recognises it to be the law. Well, does it? The language is very curious. It speaks of:
the established constitutional position.
Why cannot it even there say "the established constitutional law"? We all know what constitutional law means, but I do not think any of us know what is meant by constitutional position. At any rate, the phrase is there, and I suppose it is intended to mean something, and if it really means something, if it is meant to recognise this as part of the law of the Empire, I submit it ought to be embodied in a Clause framed in clear and definite language.

Sir BASIL PETO: I beg to second the Motion.
Either the words in the preamble are intended to mean something or nothing. If they are intended to mean nothing, then not only have the Government been afraid to put into the Bill a definite Clause enacting what these words purport to represent, but, in putting the Bill forward in its present form, they are really misleading the House. Those not acquainted with decisions in the Courts of law as to the validity of words that are merely included in the preamble to an Act, might think that by this solemn recital we have really established something which has some measure of validity. A layman myself, I am assured on the highest authority that words recited only in the preamble and not enacted in the Act itself have no validity whatever. If that be so, I cannot help wondering why these words are here at all. Unlike the last Amendment, which proposed to do something definite which was not contemplated in the Bill, this new Clause only puts into the operative part of the Bill what the Government have put into the preamble. It puts in clearer and shorter language exactly what is in the preamble. If the Government meant anything by inserting these words in the preamble, how can they resist this Clause which would put them into the body of the Bill? That is really what we want to know.
If, on the other hand, they mean nothing, why should they be put there in order to give the appearance of mean-something when we all know quite well that they mean nothing at all in law. On the grounds of necessity and plain dealing with the House and the country, we ask that these words should be put in the operative part of the Bill or left out of the Preamble altogether. If the Government resist this new Clause—I cannot see how they can on its merits—we must assume that they want the country to think that there is some protection given to the succession to the Crown, and to the principle that the different parts of the Commonwealth of Nations or the British Empire should recognise His Majesty and his successors or not. If they really mean that there should be some security given to the great bond of union which exists throughout the Empire, there is nothing more important than that we should insert these important words in the new Clause.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I hope my hon. Friends will not press this new Clause. The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) said that either the words of it should be inserted in the Bill, or they should be left out of the Preamble. I do not think there is a single Member of the House who would be more disappointed than the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple if those words were omitted from the Preable. The hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) founded his criticism on the assumption that in Statute law there had been an abandonment of the old habit of prefacing the Bill with a, Preamble, and he stated that all lawyers know that the words of the Preamble are never looked at by the judge. That statement is right with reference to an ordinary Act of Parliament, but a study of constitutional law will show that some of the classic cases dealing with the Constitution of the Realm are to be found in the Preambles of great constitutional Statutes.
I take the view that a solemn recital of these words in the Preamble of the Bill will be most valuable and impressive. They were put there at the Imperial Conference in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee on Dominion Legislation, and it would be contrary to the decision there arrived at to put these words in the operative part of the Bill. For these reasons, I hope that the Committee will feel that happily the Crown does not want this protection at least in this country, and that the firm foundation upon which the loyalty of the people of the country rests is well secured by the Preamble. I hope therefore that the Committee will not be so small-minded as to insist upon legal pedantry by putting these words in the Statute of Westminster. I hope my hon. Friends will not think it necessary to press the Clause to a Division.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: As one of those who think that it is better, so far as is possible, to have an unwritten rather than a written Constitution, it seems to me that it would be far better to leave these words in the way that they are, rather than to remove them into the Statute itself, and thereby make this declaration more rigid than it otherwise would be. I desire to call attention to some interesting observations with reference to the
Crown that were made in the course of the Debate in the Canadian House of Commons when the Statute of Westminster came before it. During that Debate, Mr. A. R. Lavergne took rather a different line. He said:
The Dominions, or self-governing Kingdoms of the Empire, should now place upon their Statute Books a law providing that they should contribute their share to the Civil List of the King and the Royal Family. That would be a far better way of recognising the benefits of the Monarchy than in indulging in protestations of lofty sentiment.
I hope that these words used in the Canadian Parliament may echo round the Parliaments of the Empire, and that some progress, perhaps on these lines, as a united Commonwealth of Nations, may be made with regard to the Crown.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should not have intervened but for the fact that the Government have been singularly unpliable to-night. As far as I could follow the arguments of the Solicitor-General, the only argument against this proposed new Clause seems to be that it is merely legal pedantry. Far be it from me to decide who are the greatest authorities on legal pedantry among the various lawyers in this House; I should never dream of interfering in such a matter, but, if that be the only reason, and apparently it is, I do not see why the Clause should not go into the Bill. I agree, on the whole, that the Preamble lays down the whole position. We know that possibly this Measure is not really quite as important as some might assume it to be, but, at the same time, this proposed new Clause does not offend anyone, none of the Dominions have asked—as we have been told on other occasions has been the case—that it should not he put in, there has been no petition from the Prime Minister or the Government of any of the Dominions that it should be left out, and, undoubtedly, a good deal of feeling has been exhibited that certain things should be inserted in an Act of this kind. Is there any reason why one section of the British Parliament should not be responsible for a little bit of the Bill on its own account?
Again the proposed new Clause makes no distinction between this Parliament and some other Parliaments of the Empire or Commonwealth of Nations, such as has been used as an argument against
other Amendments. The whole Clause might quite well be accepted by the Government if, as I understand, its acceptance would at any rate give some pleasure and consolation to those who have worked very hard and spent a great deal of time in looking into this Measure. While this particular Clause is not one on which I should desire to vote against the Government, I say quite frankly that there seems to be no earthly reason why it should not be put into the Bill, and, as I think it would be welcomed by many Members who will not take any part in the Debate, I should have thought that the Government might for once have met the desires of that section of the House who would like to see the Clause added to the Bill.

Mr. AMERY: I desire to submit one consideration to my hon. Friends in regard to this matter. I am not sure that this Clause, if it were introduced into the Bill, could apply to any other Parliament than this Parliament. I do not think it has been suggested that legislation affecting the succession to the Crown, would be likely to be introduced in any other Parliament than this, and, if that be the case, this Clause would be ineffective, because no legislation passed here could bind this Parliament against again legislating on the matter. Therefore, I submit that in law the Clause would be inoperative.
On the other hand, this whole Measure deals, not with a question of law, but with a great question of constitutional usage. If we look at the Report of the Constitutional Conference, we see that they dealt with the whole question as one of constitutional convention. They suggest that proper recognition should be given to the position of the Crown, as commanding the equal allegiance of all, by means of a convention similar to that which in recent years has controlled the theoretically unfettered powers of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. They go on to say that such a Convention could not derogate from the position of the Dominions. They suggest words which have since been adopted, and they suggest that the appropriate place would be a formal recital or Preamble in the proposed Act. I submit, not merely on the ground of conforming to what was definitely recommended by the Imperial Legislative Conference and endorsed by
the Imperial Conference of 1930 but also on the ground that the appropriate place in which to embody a constitutional principle, but not a matter of constitutional law, is in the Preamble, which is for that sort of purpose not the least important, least solemn or least binding part of a great constitutional Statute, that the present text should stand.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

PREAMBLE.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, after the word "British," to insert the words "Empire or."
I think possibly this is the second Amendment to-day which the Government may see their way to accept. If the right hon. Gentleman has really studied the meaning of the Amendment, he will be one of the first to see how reasonable it is and how much it would appeal to members of the component parts of the British Empire. It is only designed to provide the alternative and better known title of "Empire" to this comparatively new-fangled growth, the British Commonwealth of Nations. I have thought to myself, I will find out exactly what this word commonwealth means. I looked it up in the dictionary, and I found it was a form of government in which the power rests with the people. If that is accepted, surely it cannot apply to the British Commonwealth. In the British Commonwealth the form of government does not lie with the British people but lies with the will of the people of each individual component part of the Empire.
It seems to me that, while Commonwealth would be a proper term to apply to any one of the Dominions, it is a singularly improper term to apply to the Dominions as a whole. The word "Empire," although, according to the dictionary, it has a meaning which is perhaps not in consonance with our modern development of thought, means a tremendous lot to every person throughout the country, and throughout the Empire as well. After all, what does it matter what is in a name? It is what that name signifies to the people who use it that matters. Our Friend Lord Beaver-brook believes that Empire economic unity means Empire Free Trade. It is simply a question how you look at the
phraseology that you are using and with what meaning you clothe it. I remember when Mr. Forbes was addressing a meeting of Members of the House he said, "I have no use for this new-fangled term "British Commonwealth." I am very happy and satisfied with the old term "British Empire." If we go further, I have an extract from a speech by the ex-Minister of Education in Ontario in the Empire Rooms when he said:
I think in Canada we have come fully to realise what, after all, is the distinct and proper use of the term 'Empire' in relation to the British Empire. The wore 'Empire' has come down with perhaps rather a tradition and flavour of tyranny. It has usually meant a central power that has maintained its sway over out-lying, regions and compelled them to pay a tribute to it. Now the British use of the term 'Empire' has never been of that kind. … It does hot mean that we are an organisation out to dominate the world, to restrain the development of others, but it is a declaration that within our own Dominion we claim freedom and independence from outside interference. And that in my humble opinion justifies abundantly the use of the fine old term that stirs our very hearts, 'the British Empire'. The British Commonwealth of Nations has its place and use and meaning, but it is not as big, and not as ancient, and it is not as heart-stirring as that term 'The British Empire'".
That is the declaration of one of our most distinguished Canadian Ministers, and represents the feeling held by every man and woman throughout the Empire, I cannot see what harm it would do to the phraseology of the Bill. I cannot see that it would alter it in any way, but it would give that alternative term, which has a far greater meaning to us all, and which is a term which is enshrined and honoured in the heart of every individual in the British Empire.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misconception about this matter, if he will allow me to say so. He wants to call, what is rightly described as the British Commonwealth of Nations, the British Empire. The British Commonwealth of Nations is not the British Empire. If he will turn to the report of the Imperial Conference of 1926 he will find, in language most carefully chosen and as accurate as it is inspiring, that the position of the Dominions is described in this way:
Their position of mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous communities within the British Empire"—
—I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will be gratified to find the word "Empire" in the report of the Imperial Conference—
equal in status and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
The British Empire is a great and magnificent community, but it is not the same thing as the British Commonwealth of Nations, which is the accurate description of the autonomous Dominions which are generally included within that term. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will see that we intend no disrespect for and wish for no forgetfulness of the British Empire, and that this Bill wishes to emphasise or describe accurately what is a part of the British Empire, namely, the Commonwealth of the self-governing Dominions.

Sir J. WITHERS: I should like to draw the attention of the Solicitor-General to the first paragraph of the Irish Free State Agreement where it is appropriately set out that Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the unity of nations known as the British Empire, which means Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand and so on.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: It was in 1926 that this status was defined, and the Treaty from which my hon. Friend was reading was the Irish Treaty made long before the Balfour Declaration.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: After the courteous explanation which has been given by the Solicitor-General, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported: as amended, considered.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
This is, as everyone recognises, a Measure of the greatest importance in our Imperial history. It deserved the most careful attention, the most scrupulous examination and the most thorough discussion during the Committee stage. Be-
cause of its importance, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, during the Second Reading, promised that the Government would not attempt in any way to dragoon the House during the Committee discussion. They promised that any Amendment which was put down would be examined on its merits and that adequate time would be given for discussion. This afternoon and evening the Bill has been suffering that scrupulous examination. It has come through the trial with practically no alteration and has survived almost unscathed. The fact is, and I think the Debate has proved it, that the House is practically unanimous in accepting the general principle of this legislation. The House would have been untrue to itself if it had taken up any other attitude. It has often been proclaimed from this Box and from these benches that liberty is the aim of the British Empire, and this Bill, so far as the Dominions are concerned dots the "i" and crosses the "t" in liberty.
As the Bill, after the most careful examination, has passed the House with practically no alteration, very few additional words are required from this bench in order to persuade the House to give it a unanimous Third Reading. During the discussion only one major point of controversy has arisen—the question connected with the Irish Free State Constitution. Both on Friday and again this afternoon that issue was thrashed out and made quite plain. The legal position of the Irish Constitution may be altered. There is some dispute as to that, but there is very little dispute—only one Member disputed the fact—that the moral position of the Irish Constitution remains as it was, and will remain the same if the Statute of Westminster Bill is passed. The Treaty between the Irish Free State and this country still stands. The Articles of Agreement still stand, and the representatives of the Southern Irish people have repeated again and again their determination to abide faithfully by their obligations under that Treaty and under those Articles of Agreement.
We trust the word of the representatives of the Southern Irish. The Irish Free State, like the other great countries whose affairs we have been discussing
to-day, is a Dominion. It is therefore a partner in the British Commonwealth of Nations. One of the essential links between partners in any great undertaking like this is trust and mutual confidence. It is in that spirit that I would ask the House, after the very thorough discussion we have had of this Bill, to give the Bill a unanimous Third Reading to speed it on its way through this Mother of Parliaments.

Sir J. WITHERS: After having been an active opponent and critic of this Bill, I cannot help thanking the Government for the way in which they have allowed these Amendments to be considered, but I must protest again against the mode in which this Bill has been introduced. It is a Bill of immense importance to the Empire, probably the most important Bill I shall ever see passed through Parliament. It has been introduced in a period of enormous national crisis, after a General Election in which it was never mentioned, on a Friday afternoon without practically any introduction to the House of Commons at all. Certainly, under protest, we have been given time to consider these Amendments, but, after all, one Friday afternoon and the following Tuesday is very little time to give to the British House of Commons to consider a Measure which is going to regulate the whole arangements of the Empire, as I hope, for centuries. I protest against it and hope it will not occur again.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: I have great pleasure in following the speech of my Cambridge colleague to bear out the fact that there is not complete unanimity in this House for the pasisng of the Bill. The first point I make is, as I said before, that the Bill is wrongly named. We have been hearing it called again and again the Statute of Westminster. It is not the Statute of Westminster because that term can only apply accurately to the Statute of Edward I, 1275. The Soliictor-General rather laughed at my petition to him to see that it is registered as the Statute of Westminster, 1931, but to talk about the Statute of Westminster means that old law about the Law Officers and officials of the Crown who extorted so much money and about the arrears of rent of the monks, and so on.
Secondly, I protest against the assumption of the Mover of the Third Reading
that a large majority means unanimity and carries with it moral strength. I, myself, am at one with that ancient hero of Plutarch who was accustomed to say when he found himself in a majority, "Have I been doing anything base?" On several times I found myself in that position in the last few days and I cannot say how it restored my right-mindedness to find, as when I opposed the Montagu Bill 12 years ago and other Bills since which have turned out badly, that I am in an honourable minority with some of the men whom I respect most in the House of Commons. Unanimity with them is better than the unanimity I should get with the mosaic of Members of all creeds and political views in which the Prime Minister is once again followed by his ancient gang and by the Liberals mixed up with their reconciled enemies. To a majority of that kind, I pay no attention. I am proud to have voted against the Bill.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I only want to add one word to what we have had from the distinguished representatives of the two universities. We congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on having brought this Bill safely through, in spite of the reaction from within his own party. We also desire to congratulate the Law Officers of the Crown on having succeeded in steering a difficult constitutional Bill, and in having got this degree of unanimity. It is a remarkable
degree of unanimity upon so difficult a controversy. We are delighted to see that the Empire is launched upon a new era, we hope a new era of great prosperity.

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) [SALARIES AND EXPENSES].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend by three years the period during which the powers of the Commissioners appointed under the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1928, may be exercised, and for purposes incidental to such extension, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to remunerate the Assistant Commissioners and the Secretary and other officers of the Commissioners, and to defray the expenses incurred by the Commissioners during the aforesaid extended period.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.